https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69668
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #55 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #54)
> (In reply to alalaw01 from comment #53)
> > >
> > >So, there is nothing to fix in GCC? Why isn't this bug closed as invalid?
> >
> > Not everyone wants to patch SPEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Proposed patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/scanner.c b/gcc/fortran/scanner.c
index c1d79457..c4e7974e 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/scanner.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/scanner.c
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ add_path_to_list (gfc_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This bug dates back to my original code in June of 2009.
See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/84jZg4NeUe8
Steve has provided a patch which I am now testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Test case:
module newunit_bug
implicit none
contains
subroutine open_file_safe(fname, fstatus, faction, fposition, funit)
character(*), intent(in) :: fname, fstatus, faction, fposition
integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Feb 23 18:38:31 2016
New Revision: 233641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/69456
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch tested. It will be committed soon. Just need to go through the approval
process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk. Will leave open for a bit to see if there is any fallout.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> With the patch in comment 6 the test gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 has to be
> updated to
>
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 2012-08-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Feb 23 22:53:31 2016
New Revision: 233649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/61156
* scanne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk, back port in a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Feb 24 06:45:41 2016
New Revision: 233653
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle
Backported from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submiited:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-02/msg00095.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
When using the REPEAT intrinsic as a parameter, the frontend is simplifying
this to an actual string constant of the requested length. In this process it
is attempting to allocate length + 1 in order to inter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56981
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 37811
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37811&action=edit
Proposed patch
This patch fixes some signed integer problems in a few places and allows the
test case to compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69110
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 27 19:07:13 2016
New Revision: 233782
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233782&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-27 Jerry DeLisle
Steven G. Kargl
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69110
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 27 19:07:13 2016
New Revision: 233782
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233782&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-27 Jerry DeLisle
Steven G. Kargl
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56744
Bug 56744 depends on bug 69456, which changed state.
Bug 69456 Summary: Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Feb 28 06:50:27 2016
New Revision: 233789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-27 Jerry DeLisle
Backported from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Feb 28 18:16:56 2016
New Revision: 233793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233793&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-28 Jerry DeLisle
Backported from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
... snip ...
> before the patch and with
>
> pr66310_1.f90:3:0:
>
>print *, repeat(z, huge(1_4))
>
> internal compiler error: Segmentation fault:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Feb 28 19:07:42 2016
New Revision: 233795
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233795&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-28 Harald Anlauf
Jerry DeLisle
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66709
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45179
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2016-03-03
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks for report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Paul, could you please post the terminal output that gives the error message
please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70068
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The problem does not exist on Linux for sure. Not sure if this is a TDM
distribution problem, a Windows problem, a MingW problem, or gfortran.
I am going to have to get set up on Windows so this may take a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> > The problem does not exist on Linux for sure. Not sure if this is a TDM
> > distribution problem, a Windows problem, a Mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #6)
> Hi Jerry,
>
> do you think my suggested patch could be applied before the 6 release?
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
This is my plan. Just out of town for a few days. May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 13 00:19:08 2016
New Revision: 234167
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234167&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-12 Jerry DeLisle
Harold Anlauf
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70215
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 13 17:38:07 2016
New Revision: 234169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-13 Jerry DeLisle
Jim MacArthur
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2016-03-15
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Interesting: -fdump-tree-original snippets
snip
ch_array.dim[0].lbound = 1
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In the following code, one case of the constructor gives an error and one does
not.
integer, parameter :: char_len = 32
character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70237
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70233
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Harold,
Thanks for the help and I will test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have isolated to a block of code which is dead relative to our current
testsuite. Now to work on the solution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70233
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The failures I looked at were becasue the constructors were using strings of
different sizes. So my question was going to be what are the rules. Are the
strings suppose to get padded to the length of the cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70237
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
*** Bug 70237 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 19 20:28:38 2016
New Revision: 234352
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234352&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-19 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/69043
* scanne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 37990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37990&action=edit
A useful test program
I get correct results using the attached with gcc version 4.6.4 (GCC)
Broken in 4.9, 5,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #7)
... snip ...
>
> My gut feeling is that it has something to do with having "precision" == 17
> in that function. In any case, the nafter is too large when nblanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70233
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Dominique, thanks for finding this. It even makes sense; if the typespec is
given one knows what the size of the string is. If not given, how does one
decide which is the right size, so require that they all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 38075
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38075&action=edit
A patch for testing
Please test this patch as much as possible. I think I have it right, but one
can never te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 38075 [details]
> > A patch for testing
>
> With the patch and using the test attached to comment 5 with y = 1.0 and
> d=8, I get t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 38090
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38090&action=edit
Updated patch correcting problem found by Dominique
This is what I came up with independent of Dominiques patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 38091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38091&action=edit
A more exhaustive testing program
This test allows at least visual inspection of the patterns. The test omits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #19)
> Created attachment 38100 [details]
> Another patch with correct rounding
>
> > While I think the handling of nafter < 0 is correct, it is probably
> > a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #22)
> Created attachment 38107 [details]
> New patch with test.
>
> With the patch we now get for y=6431.25
>
> ru,-8pf18.2 y= 0.01
>
> IMO thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Dominiq, I have tested as much as I can with several variations of values of
the float and all looks good. I am ready to approve your patch when you are.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The following additional patchlet does the trick.
Still need to regression test.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.c b/gcc/fortran/array.c
index 2fc9dfaf..8fef30ce 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/array.c
+++ b/gcc/fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
> Created attachment 36887 [details]
> A faster version
>
> I took the example code found in
> http://wiki.cs.utexas.edu/rvdg/HowToOptimizeGemm/ where the registe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Apr 9 19:09:02 2016
New Revision: 234864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/68566
* array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58000
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51820
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> Note that the extra comma is used in the following tests:
>
> gfortran.dg/array_constructor_49.f90
> gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_6.F90
> gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67039
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52884
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #11)
---snip--
>
> May I suggest reading the docs? ;-)
>
--- snip ---
> The default value for N is the value sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
||2016-04-15
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
Summary|incorrect reading of values |[Regression 5.3, 6]
|from file on Windows|incorrect reading of values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This slightly modified version of the testcase shows the bug with Linux:
program test
implicit none
integer,parameter :: isize=12
integer,parameter :: funit=12
integer :: i
character(1), parameter :: cr=char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The regression occurred at r200238, which was a fix for PR57633.
I am working on a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The following patch fixes the issue.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c b/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
index e24b3922..b8e174c5 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Apr 19 19:24:28 2016
New Revision: 235220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-19 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/70684
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Ray Donnelly from comment #9)
> Should the other two places - next_char_default () and next_char_internal ()
> -that also do:
>
> dtp->u.p.at_eol = (c == '\n' || c == EOF);
>
> not check for '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Andy May from comment #12)
> I don't know that it's necessary or desired to support both '\n' and '\r' as
> eol, but instead the native eol just needs to be used consistently
> everywhere, for e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Andy May from comment #14)
--- snip ---
>
> Of course, I really appreciate the work that goes into this. I've already
> made a local patch file with your fix so that the mxe.cc gcc builds with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Apr 24 05:07:21 2016
New Revision: 235391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/70684
* i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue May 3 00:51:30 2016
New Revision: 235801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-02 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from mainline
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70959
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri May 6 01:18:59 2016
New Revision: 235941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-05 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk.
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on 7, 6, 5, and 4.9. and closing. Please let me know if further
problems arise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70684
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Nick from comment #0)
> Created attachment 38475 [details]
> Source code trigging bug
>
> - Compiling amos/zunhj.f in scipy package crashes with:
>
> zunhj.f:1:0:
>
>SUBROUTINE ZUNHJ(Z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This is a bandaid, but it works.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.c b/gcc/fortran/match.c
index 2490f856..726973a6 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
@@ -1438,7 +1438,16 @@ gfc_match_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70959
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have tried changing the matching order so that integer constants are matched
before real or complex. It fixes the reported problem but results in numerous
test suite failures.
I wonder. If we just change
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Posted on the gfortran list.
The following program works fine under Linux but fails under Windows.
IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H,O-Z)
DIMENSION SENID(30)
NAMELIST /FITH
501 - 600 of 2295 matches
Mail list logo
