https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91413
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Keywords: accepts-invalid, diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following code has different string lengths in the array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93289
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> It appears to be an undocumented extension. Add -Wall to your command line.
I would rather call it a bug :-)
The truncation warning is a separate thing. For instance, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93289
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Okay, it is indeed a -std=gnu extension. I still regard it as bug that it
differs, but we can now think about which one to change. Namely:
In the always-error case (i.e. literal first):
* gfc_resolve_charac
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following program fails when compiled with -fopenacc & -fopenacc
simultaneously:
$ gfortran-trunk -fopenmp -fope
Keywords: accepts-invalid, diagnostic, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 85781
Target Milestone: ---
Came up when testing PR85781.
With C binding, one has a simple "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93309
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Tobias
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81886
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
Related: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01183.html (full thread)
Namely, AMD GCN has different ISA – and depending which are available in the
binary, the hardware could be chosen; having the w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93309
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
FIXED for GCC 10.
Thanks for the report!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93464
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93025
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> It is not clear to me whether it is valid or not.
To answer myself and record the result: As mentioned by me in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93461
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #4)
> your proposed patch fails with:
>
> checking for suffix of object files... configure: error: in
> `/home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-202
> 00128/build-gcn/amdgcn-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #7)
> /home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-20200128/build-gcn/./gcc/xgcc […]
> -isystem /home/packages/gcc/10/gcc-10-10-20200128/src-gcn/newlib/libc/include
This looks as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
Regarding the -mx32 issue (comment 0 to comment 3), that should be fixed by the
patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01663.html
The issue reported in comment 4 should be fixed by patch
https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93409
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
CFI_cdesc_t structure type has:
size_t elem_len;
If the object is scalar, the value is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92844
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> I think that is or could be a duplicate of PR 92305
PR92305 has been fixed. Can you re-check whether the issue of this PR still
occurs?
At least when trying it
Keywords: documentation, openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92844
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Our nightly tests have:
PASS on 2020-01-29
FAIL on 2020-01-30, 2020-01-31
PASS on 2020-02-01, 2020-02-02
(I couldn't find older data.) — Hence, it looks also like intermittent
failures. Still, I think/hope Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93427
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93541
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93309
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to ripero84 from comment #4)
> Thank you! Would it be possible to backport this fix to the other active
> branches?
Done so for GCC 9 – I did not check GCC 8 and I also do not think that it
belon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93462
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The test case for PR target/90811, libgomp.c/pr90811.c fails on PowerPC64le
with nvptx
oduct: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: m68k-linux-gnu
Just som
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following can be found in libgomp/openacc_lib.h – or actually not, it
currently uses (once) "async_" to avoid the bogus err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93787
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
The following compiles with free-form source code but shows for fixed-form
source code:
Error: Ambiguous interfaces in generic interface 'acc_create_async' for
‘acc_create_async_32_h’ at (1) and ‘acc_create_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93598
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93787
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Note: Once this bug is fixed, libgomp/openacc_lib.h shall be updated as the
'async_' name is user visible and wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Draft patch, lightly tested:
--- a/gcc/omp-expand.c
+++ b/gcc/omp-expand.c
@@ -6029,10 +6029,7 @@ expand_oacc_for (struct omp_region *region, struct
omp_for_data *fd)
basic_block cont_bb = region->cont; /
-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In following code, i and j are implicitly typed and of type integer.
Nonetheless, the error is
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Found when looking at PR 93552.
The code gfc_trans_omp_do for collapes (and for OpenACC's 'tile
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[8/9/10
|gfc_trans_exit, at |Regression][OpenACC] ICE in
|fortran/trans-stmt.c:6110 |gfc_trans_exit, at
|since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93552
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> As PR 93825 shows,
Wrong PR – it is related, but the one relevant for this discussion is PR 93826.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93825
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 47877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47877&action=edit
Draft patch
The attached patch fixes the issue for "tile". (By doing what is done in
gfc_resolve_code for EXEC_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93826
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
The C code rejects this as follows.
The OpenACC specification talks about "tightly nested loops"; the OpenMP spec
is less clear but for "collapse" contrary to "tile" the implication that
tightly nested loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93825
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93552
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Committed patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg01280.html
Before, only "collapse" was reported (for OpenACC + OpenMP), now the check is
also done for OpenACC's "tile" clause. — And for both c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-05
22:46:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> + if (fsym && fsym->attr.optional && sym && sym->attr.pointer)
Shouldn't you use something like
gfc_expr_attr(expr).pointer
Otherwise, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-06
11:16:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> For the allocatable case, no packing is done at all (I guess it's just not
> needed there, since an allocatable array, contrary to a pointer, is alw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-06
12:17:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Here is an updated patch, which works for pointers and pointer components,
Seems to work better than I expected. However, there is still an issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed||2013-02-06
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54339
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-07
11:08:28 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Feb 7 11:08:20 2013
New Revision: 195845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195845
Log:
2013-02-07 Tobias Burnus
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-07
11:10:16 UTC ---
FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56293
Bug #: 56293
Summary: I/O: Segfault in write_float when trying to print a
not-word-aligned REAL(16) / -fno-align-commons
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56293
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56293
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|I/O: Segfault in|Segfault when trying to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56293
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-12
13:07:10 UTC ---
Some tests with ifort, which by default uses unaligned commons: The first test
case works, i.e. I/O with the unaligned "p" works. However, if one calls a user
procedure ("call foo(p)"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56082
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-12
16:22:26 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Feb 12 16:22:13 2013
New Revision: 195984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195984
Log:
2013-02-12 Dominique d'Humieres
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-12
16:27:12 UTC ---
Should be FIXED.
Thanks Dominique for the report, debugging the issue, and for the patch!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-13
12:03:27 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 13 12:03:18 2013
New Revision: 196011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196011
Log:
2013-02-13 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56305
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-13
14:38:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The test case fails because the match is too strict.
Should be fixed - for the the trunk only - since 2012-01-09 via
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-13
15:09:06 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 13 15:08:59 2013
New Revision: 196016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196016
Log:
2012-02-13 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-13
17:51:17 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 13 17:51:11 2013
New Revision: 196020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196020
Log:
2013-02-13 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-14
09:37:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Feb 14 09:37:53 2013
New Revision: 196047
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196047
Log:
2013-02-14 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56318
Bug #: 56318
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Wrong result with MATMUL of
PARAMETER
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56318
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56318
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53537
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45129
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28397
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WONTFIX
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-15
07:45:58 UTC ---
I close this now as WONTFIX.
Given that it works in the current release 4.7.x and in the
very-soon-to-be-released 4.8, it is simply
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53818
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-15
08:50:43 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Feb 15 08:50:37 2013
New Revision: 196073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196073
Log:
2013-02-15 Tobias Burnus
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-15
08:52:32 UTC ---
Finally FIXED – the approval was quite a while ago
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-07/msg3.html
Thanks for the bugreport and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56318
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-15
11:17:23 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Feb 15 11:17:15 2013
New Revision: 196075
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196075
Log:
2013-02-14 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56318
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-15
14:20:30 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Feb 15 14:20:22 2013
New Revision: 196078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196078
Log:
2013-02-15 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56318
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-15
14:20:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Feb 15 14:20:49 2013
New Revision: 196079
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196079
Log:
2013-02-15 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56342
Bug #: 56342
Summary: MATMUL with PARAMETER: Simplification usually doesn't
work
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56318
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56379
Bug #: 56379
Summary: libquadmath: Wrong result for strtoflt128.c if
compiled with -O0
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56379
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56378
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-18
20:08:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
...
> function int_fvec2vec (f_vec, n) result (c_vec)
> integer f_vec(:)
...
> subroutine lat_to_c (Fp, C) bind(c)
...
> call lat_to_c2 (c_loc(fvec2vec(ic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56379
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-18
23:42:18 UTC ---
Some debugging. If one adds the following debugging patch:
--- a/libquadmath/strtod/strtod_l.c
+++ b/libquadmath/strtod/strtod_l.c
@@ -441,3 +441,5 @@ mpn_lshift_1 (mp_limb_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56379
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48111
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
Bug #: 56408
Summary: Fix dependency handling of testsuite/gfortran.dg
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-20
14:50:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29510
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29510
Draft patch (fails due to issues mentioned in comment 3)
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-20
15:29:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> So can the modules be just moved into their own separate files and #included
> (or INCLUDEd)?
No. Those tests require that there is more than one t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56408
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-20
16:32:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29511
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29511
Draft patch (not working) for testsuite/lib
(In reply to comment #5)
> Maybe, an option wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56416
Bug #: 56416
Summary: texinfo 5: Many warnings for gfortran's *.texi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56416
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-21
09:23:38 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Feb 21 09:23:31 2013
New Revision: 196194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196194
Log:
2012-02-21 Tobias Burnus
||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-21
12:10:50 UTC ---
FIXED on the 4.8 trunk. (Only warnings - contrary to PR 56258; hence, I do not
intent to backport it.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55308
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56422
Bug #: 56422
Summary: IR F08/0086: gfortran rejects valid implied-shape
arrays
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56423
Bug #: 56423
Summary: F08/0071: Shall reject invalid Vector subscript target
with Pointer assignment
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
401 - 500 of 5819 matches
Mail list logo
