https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80256
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80766
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80256
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue May 23 15:54:59 2017
New Revision: 248371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/80256
* gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80256
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80333
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue May 23 21:39:41 2017
New Revision: 248388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248388&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-23 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80333
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80741
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue May 23 22:05:56 2017
New Revision: 248390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-23 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80741
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #32)
> Created attachment 41406 [details]
> Additional files for the previous patch
>
> Here are the new files for the patch.
Well I tried to apply the patch and tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #35 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #34)
> Created attachment 41410 [details]
> Patch which has all the files
>
> Well, I suspect my way of splitting the previous patch into
> one real patch and one *.t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #36 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Results look very good.
Gfortran 7, no patch gives:
$ gfc7 -static -Ofast -ftree-vectorize compare.f90
$ ./a.out
=
ME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
> Created attachment 41420 [details]
> Early patch for simplifying impl do loops - 2
>
> Sorry, wrong patch _and_ wrong testcase... Still fails for mysterious
> r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The patch regression tested OK. Manfred can you test for yourself? At least on
this test case we are getting biggly better!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Manfred Schwarb from comment #10)
> As I understand this patch applies to read and write.
> How does this optimization behave regarding my pet issue (short array reads)?
>
> I.e.
> progra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon May 29 19:17:57 2017
New Revision: 248577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-29 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/53029
* li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk. If this is important enough we could backport to 7. Any
opinions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to DIL from comment #4)
> Offset of zero is fine. I have never observed this SegFault before. I ran
> the test on multiple machines with GCC/5.3.0, GCC/5.4.0, and GCC/6.3.1.
> Also, as I mentioned b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80945
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80988
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52473
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
After a lot of head scratching I think I am changing my mind on this one.
If one tries to assign to a real variable as in:
program test_b_write_dt_mod
use :: B_write_dt_mod
implicit none
type(B_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Some other bugs were fixed and I am wondering if this is still failing?
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41525&action=edit
Valid code rejected
$ gfortran -fcoarray=single -c co_reduce_res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81039
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> WORKSFORME: r248853 and x86_64-apple-darwin16.
Updating my trunk and doing a clean build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81039
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2017-06-21
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 ---
We probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81195
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2)
> I was sort of waiting for the new SPEC suite to expose bugs :-)
>
> The patch looks obvious enough, even in the absence
> of a test case.
>
> Could you run a re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81160
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jun 24 21:22:08 2017
New Revision: 249627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-24 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/81160
* arith.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81160
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk. Any need to backport to 7 or earlier?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Martin or Dominique, in looking at this I am unable to reproduce any failures.
Was this for a specific platform? Mac, PowerPC ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81160
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 28 02:17:40 2017
New Revision: 249718
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249718&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-27 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/80164
* trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk, will backport to 7 in a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 28 04:14:32 2017
New Revision: 249719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-27 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81241
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #7)
--- snip ---
>
> However, for stash_internal_unit, we have as global definitions
> #define NEWUNIT_STACK_SIZE 16
> static gfc_saved_unit n
||2017-07-13
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #11)
> I don't know what process J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81296
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=65757
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Created attachment 41744 [details]
> gcc8-pr65757.patch
>
> Here is a full version, it compiles, no further testing so far.
> I guess I can bootstrap/regtest i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #18)
> Created attachment 40119 [details]
> Version that works (AVX only)
>
> Here is a version that should only do AVX stuff on Intel processors.
> Optimization for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #19)
> Created attachment 40120 [details]
> Updated patch
>
> Well, here's an update also for AVX512F.
>
> I can confirm the patch gives the same performance as the
||2016-11-25
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #0)
> Currently GFortran uses a plain C int for character leng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Assigning to myself so I do not forget to look at it in the pile.
Can you explain what "Windows Subsystem for Linux (Ubuntu 14) on Windows-10"
is?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to mecej4 from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #5)
> >
> > Can you explain what "Windows Subsystem for Linux (Ubuntu 14) on Windows-10"
> > is?
>
> Sorry if I created a bad p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
Correction:
> Regardless, I will be looking at pr78351 (which is a result of doing some
> speedups for internal units) and I will be thinking more about this PR her
||2016-12-03
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Confirmed, looks like we have a check in the wrong place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2016-12-04
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 ---
Mine
||2016-12-04
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 ---
Honestly, I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
A few regressions related to not giving the error. Uncovers an ICE in
namelist_63.f90.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2016-12-05
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 ---
I will look at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Note: PR66310 is a related issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have the ICE resolved, but also note that the Fortran 95 standard has the
constraint on namelist statements and F2003 does not.
Constraint - namelist-group-object shall not be an array dummy argument with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Dec 6 17:13:31 2016
New Revision: 243308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/78659
* resolv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I cc'ed Paul on this one. Not sure what is going on here, but I will be looking
at it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78737
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I am not sure what you are expecting. The module has an empty main program and
nothing allocated to link to.. Since the interface is abstract it creates
nothing until it is used I think.
$ gfc pr78737.f03
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
||2016-12-14
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 ---
The warning of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78662
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Status. This is one of those where I was looking at the solution and did not
see it for a while. Then it pops into view. The strings are stored with the
double quotes and passed that way to the write routines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78662
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00193.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.richard.thomas at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78622
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Dec 16 20:27:51 2016
New Revision: 243765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243765&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-16 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/78622
* io.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78822
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Yes, the bug is in your program. After failing to open the subsequent write
statements are assuming default open which is by definition, sequentiial, so
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #9)
> Jerry, I don't want to steal this PR from you ;) but I think I have a rather
> complete patch by now. If you have any comments, please let me know!
You save me a lot of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #11)
> (In reply to janus from comment #10)
> > The attached patch seems to make the original comment 0 as well as the
> > polymorphic version in comment 7 work. Regtesting no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78848
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78848
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #4)
> Sorry, actually the example in comment 3 only ICEs if the type-binding of
> the DTIO is commented out:
>
> module m
> type :: t
> integer :: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> I think this needs to be reopened. As mentioned in comment 0, the original
> test case in itself is valid, but is invalidated by adding an I/O statement
> that reference
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
On my list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78854
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> I'm afraid I have too little knowledge of the I/O parts of libgfortran to
> fix, but I can at least give some pointers to where things appear to go
--- snip ---
> if (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78622
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78662
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
The case that ICEs needs to have an error check in io.c (gfc_resolve_dt). I
have found the location and now need to build the error check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This is a DUP of reopened 78659, I will include your test case as part of it.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 78659 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> (In reply to janus from comment #0)
> > It seems like the first character is being swallowed somewhere ...
>
> Moreover the EOF is supposed to be an EOR?
I will start l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59781
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #18)
> Created attachment 40364 [details]
> updated patch
>
> Here is an updated patch, which fixes all wrong-code issues AFAICS. It
> includes improved handling of CLASS-vs-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78854
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Sorry for the delay here. The unit number passed to the users dtio procedure is
0, so thats clearly wrong. I will see if I can fix that and see what happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Possibly due to r240018 which is fix for pr77393.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78854
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
> This essentially blocks PR 78661, for which it is very hard to write a
> proper test case as long as this bug is unfixed.
Janus, you could open a file with status scratc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3)
> > (In reply to janus from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to janus from comment #0)
> > > > It seems like the first charac
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Three files. While testing some threading concept. Note: This is not an actual
coarray program.
Compile with:
gfortran -fopenmp cafmain.f90 cafi.f90 caf.f90
Compiles and runs fine with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79739
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 40839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40839&action=edit
Combined to one file.
Compile slightly reduced file with gfcortran -fopenmp cafmain.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78854
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
We are not handling the internal unit check correctly in unit.c (get_unit) and
we return a NULL to the caller which is then interpreted as an error. I am
working on the fix now. (just a little head scratchin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79841
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
701 - 800 of 2295 matches
Mail list logo
