https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78027
--- Comment #7 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Last I heard in <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01050.html>
Jakub was going to look for a better solution. My patch is still in trunk, but
if necessary I could always revert it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80029
--- Comment #3 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> That doesn't work, it is too early.
> With:
> --- gimplify.c.jj 2017-03-08 18:19:24.0 +0100
> +++ gimplify.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80029
--- Comment #4 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Wed Mar 22 13:52:10 2017
New Revision: 246381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80029
gcc/
* gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80029
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu, nvptx-none
Created attachment 3
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
I'm not sure if this problem is fortran specific, but I noticed that gfortran
is identifying calls to libgomp, specifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35058
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35058&action=edit
__builtin_GOACC_data_end
Sorry, I thought I included this test case. Anyway, the !$acc data
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Isn't GOACC_parallel likely to have the same problem because hostaddrs may be
written to?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68168
--- Comment #1 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36626
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36626&action=edit
fix
Sorry the bootstrap failure. I thought bootstrapped gcc before applying the
patch to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68168
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Sat Oct 31 17:55:03 2015
New Revision: 229631
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229631&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR Bootstrap/68168
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
--- Comment #8 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not sure it will make much of a difference, but Thomas is planning on
adding two openacc clauses bind and nohost. Is there anything I can do to help
here, or is this already being taken care of?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63858
--- Comment #7 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Wed Nov 25 14:37:36 2015
New Revision: 230872
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230872&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/63858
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63858
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63858
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
--- Comment #12 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #11)
> (In reply to cesar from comment #10)
> > Thanks for reducing this Dominique. I'm not sure what caused the ICE yet, I
> > don&#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
--- Comment #13 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Wed Dec 2 19:59:27 2015
New Revision: 231204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/
PR fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68813
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68813
--- Comment #3 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tom is this problem specific to gomp-4_0-branch? I can't reproduce it in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68813
--- Comment #5 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Thu Jan 7 03:28:05 2016
New Revision: 232121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/68813
gcc/
* o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68813
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #22 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #21)
> How about
>
> + else
> + gcc_unreachable ();
>
> ?
>
> That makes sure you run into all the unh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #23 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36037&action=edit
patch to handle different types of value exprs
This new patch handles other types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #24 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:38:43 2015
New Revision: 226160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66714
gcc/
* tree-cfg.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #1 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri Jul 29 04:20:00 2016
New Revision: 238847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/72741
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #4 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that
test case because fortran doesn't have file scope. Specifically, in your
example,
SUBROUTINE r_w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72741
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #5)
> (In reply to cesar from comment #4)
> Are you saying that's not how the Fortran front end operates, and the
> "SUBROUTINE
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: cesar at gcc dot gnu.org, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu, nvptx-none
Created attachment 39268
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70828
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Thu Aug 18 01:12:15 2016
New Revision: 239554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/70828
gcc/
* gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74755
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The target is nvptx-none, specifically when it is built as an offloaded target
for OpenACC. Thomas thinks the problem is in newlib rather than gcc though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72715
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Mon Aug 29 21:16:04 2016
New Revision: 239845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/72715
gcc
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
