--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-12 14:36
---
Subject: Bug 43320
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Mar 12 14:36:16 2010
New Revision: 157405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157405
Log:
2010-03-12 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/4332
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 14:35
---
Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|A
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-11 14:24
---
You can find my SPEC CPU pass/fail results at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/
The last one is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg00855.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 14:20
---
If someone confirms SPEC is cleared, please close.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43320
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 11:08 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I plan to commit the following as a compromise. We have had several PRs here
> that contradict.
I am not sure whether the PRs really contradict as they just ask "do what the
other compil
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 02:26
---
Subject: Bug 43320
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Mar 11 02:26:36 2010
New Revision: 157378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157378
Log:
2010-03-10 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/4332
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 02:15
---
Subject: Bug 43320
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Mar 11 02:15:33 2010
New Revision: 157377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157377
Log:
2010-03-10 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/4332
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 01:56
---
I plan to commit the following as a compromise. We have had several PRs here
that contradict. Not surprising really. The compromise is to use item_count
to decide whether to hit_eof or not. We could also do t
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 20:21
---
I am fairly sure its the hit_eof I removed from next_record_r in transfer.c.
When I get to my work machine I will fix either by reverting or otherwise.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43320
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 19:44
---
I will get on this tonight.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 16:31 ---
Even though this is Fortran being able to build & run SPEC is release critical.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 14:52 ---
Reduced test case: Reading from a completely empty line should produce an EOF
status. As soon as there is a "\n" or " " or "0", ifort, NAG f95 and gfortran
4.3/4.5 also succeed (i.e. have no EOF error.)
That's kind o
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 14:39 ---
Reproduce using:
1. Grab SixTrack.zip (see comment 4)
2. Change in track.f, line 4411 in "(i,1x,..." the "i" into an "i0"
3. Grab the input file
http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/Inj
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 14:31 ---
The SixTrack souce code can be found at
http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/code-tracking.htm
Namely:
http://lhc-collimation-project.web.cern.ch/lhc-collimation-project/SixPack.zip
Reg
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot
|
--- Comment #3 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-03-10 13:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] 200.sixtrack fails setup
Dear All,
>
> Paul, I think you are the only gfortraner, which has access to SPEC CPU 2000.
> Can you have a look?
>
I am still recuperating f
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 12:40 ---
Richard, how new is this regression? That is: Which check-ins could have causes
this?
Assuming that CPU SPEC is run every day, I assume that it is the patch for PR
43265; namely commit http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 12:35 ---
Last known good rev. 157294, first known bad rev. 157328 (x86_64).
Last known good rev. 157304, first known bad rev. 157331 (ia64).
Points at:
Index: libgfortran/ChangeLog
==
18 matches
Mail list logo
