https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks,
Try this fix:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/write.c b/libgfortran/io/write.c
index c9aad150..d26358c0 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/write.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/write.c
@@ -1552,7 +1552,7 @@ select_stri
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
My bad. I will look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Alternatively one could do this:
@@ -1809,9 +1809,11 @@ write_complex (st_parameter_dt *dtp, const char *source,
int kind, size_t size)
precision, buf_size, result1, &res_len1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Nov 29 03:07:43 2017
New Revision: 255225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-28 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/83168
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> Alternatively one could do this:
>
> @@ -1809,9 +1809,11 @@ write_complex (st_parameter_dt *dtp, const char
> *source, int kind, size_t size)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81937
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I will investigate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83225
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 3 03:26:09 2017
New Revision: 255362
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255362&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-02 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/83225
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83225
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 3 05:05:51 2017
New Revision: 255364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-02 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83225
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk and 7. Will leave open for a short while in case any further
issues arise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83225
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 3 16:47:12 2017
New Revision: 255365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-03 Jerry DeLisle
Dominique d'Humieres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 3 20:43:59 2017
New Revision: 255368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-03 Jerry DeLisle
Dominique d'Humieres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Should this be backported?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Dec 4 03:51:28 2017
New Revision: 255373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-03 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #30 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Not quite fixed yet. I have found:
==17070== 88 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3 of 9
==17070==at 0x4C31B25: calloc (in
/usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==17070
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> At revision r239908 the second test in comment 0 still gives
>
>
> **
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Sep 1 21:17:42 2016
New Revision: 239945
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-01 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77393
* gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The update to the test case should correct any platform specific KIND issues.
May need to upsize the bufers a little for Dominique's issue. I set the
buffers tight so we could catch different behaviors on p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> > Works for me here!
>
> Are you sure that you have tested
>
> print "(f8.0)", huge(1.0)
> print "(f18.0)", huge(1.0_8)
> print "(f20.0)", huge(1.0_10)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
> The test FAILs on Solaris (both sparc and x86, both 32 and 64-bit):
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_f0_2.f90 -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_f0_2.f90 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 39577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39577&action=edit
Patch for testing, fixes comment #2?
This patch for testing. I have tested on x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0 whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Sep 6 23:22:26 2016
New Revision: 240018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77393
* i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77532
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Sep 10 21:16:45 2016
New Revision: 240074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-10 Paul Thomas
Steven G. Kargl
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77593
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59015
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
Bug 58020 depends on bug 59015, which changed state.
Bug 59015 Summary: I/O of PARAMETER derived type with private component is
forbidden
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59015
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 39669
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39669&action=edit
Revised patch for review/testing
This revised patch speeds up execution on non DTIO internal units by saving a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71363
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71363
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:25:00PM +0000, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > I will try to study the script some more later today. Changing status to
> > unco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77707
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Sep 23 20:36:21 2016
New Revision: 240456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/48298
* i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77593
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to tprince from comment #8)
> I show my configure parameters in my test results posts. At some time in
> the past, each of them has been important. I don't know if the parameters
> quoted by cygwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77707
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Sep 28 19:38:03 2016
New Revision: 240592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-28 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77707
io/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77707
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Sep 28 19:43:03 2016
New Revision: 240593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-28 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77707
* gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77707
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk. Will backport in a few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77707
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Sep 29 18:08:05 2016
New Revision: 240627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-29 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on six, one more to go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77707
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Sep 30 04:49:36 2016
New Revision: 240645
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240645&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-29 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77707
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66643
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Sep 30 23:19:58 2016
New Revision: 240686
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240686&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-30 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/66643
* io.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66643
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2016-10-03
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 ---
(In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77828
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 39746
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39746&action=edit
One approach to resolving this
With the attached patch, here is the result of trying to go forward or backward
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Subject is self explanatory. The commit that added the check broke a few test
cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77868
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=77828
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Just need to edit the trunk/libgfortran/libtool-version file, bumping the major
rev number and build from a clean build directory. I have tested this and it
works fine. I want to see if we are going to get t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77868
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Oct 5 16:32:24 2016
New Revision: 240794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-05 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/77868
* io/inq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77868
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While looking at something else I stumbled on this with iomesg_1.f90.
$ gfc -std=gnu iomsg_1.f90
iomsg_1.f90:25:121:
sg=ch) ! { dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77900
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This goes way back to at least 4.0 so maybe we chose to do this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77915
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 #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should mention. The reason I spotted this is:
open (-3, err=200, iomsg=ch) <=== should also be a compile error.
-3 is a reserved unit number, currently representing GFC_INVALID_UNIT.
-1 and -2
||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Testing fix now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77972
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 15 18:38:54 2016
New Revision: 241201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-15 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/77972
* scanne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77972
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Oct 16 16:29:46 2016
New Revision: 241216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-16 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/48298
* trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The patch in comment 26 addressed the behavior of inquire(iolength= ) when
derived types with User Defined procedures are in the Output List.
The only other case I see not addressed yet is the size= specifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 18 04:14:25 2016
New Revision: 241294
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241294&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-17 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/48298
* io/io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77828
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Looking, but need more info.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
As a test, try this patch.
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/io.h b/libgfortran/io/io.h
index edc520a9..00ced533 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/io.h
+++ b/libgfortran/io/io.h
@@ -514,6 +514,7 @@ typedef struct st_par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Ok I will commit that little chink for now. My next patch really slams this
structure so I think I will send it to you first to see what breaks. In fact I
just pinged the post for it.
In the meantime need t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I think I understand. The Frontend needs to access the parameters before and
after the dtp->u.p section. When deleting that integer, that section was
shortened, so the placement of the parameters after are of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Rainer,
Would you please apply the patch from here and see if it fixes also or breaks
more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-10/msg00133.html
Thanks,
Jerry
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Working on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Oct 21 18:02:32 2016
New Revision: 241422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-21 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/78055
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Rainer, please confirm the fix commited on trunk when you have time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77828
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Oct 24 21:42:29 2016
New Revision: 241497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-24 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/77828
* io/io.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77828
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 48298, which changed state.
Bug 48298 Summary: [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
What|Removed |Added
--
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
See report here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-10/msg00194.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should have looked at this sooner. We actually do diagnose this, but our
warning/error logic is not right.
pr54679.f90:8:56:
PRINT "(A,1X,I2,1X,A,1X,I2,1X,A,2(1X,I0,1X),A,2(1X,L0,1X))"
||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The development branch (7.0) is not compatible with previously compiled
libraries and manifests as segfault. This was fixed just recently, as Steve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Started looking into this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78123
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-10/msg00253.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78123
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Oct 30 22:14:01 2016
New Revision: 241691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-30 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/78123
* io/tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78171
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Oct 31 19:59:04 2016
New Revision: 241720
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-31 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/54679
* io.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78123
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Oct 31 20:57:16 2016
New Revision: 241722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-31 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78123
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Oct 31 23:40:40 2016
New Revision: 241727
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241727&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-31 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78123
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #32 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 39985
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39985&action=edit
Proposed patch to get testing going
This patch works pretty good for me. My results are as follows:
gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #33 from Jerry DeLisle ---
With #pragma GCC optimize ( "-O3" )
$ gfc -static -O2 -finline-matmul-limit=0 compare.f90
$ ./a.out
=
MEASURED GIGAFLO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #34 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 39987
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39987&action=edit
A test program
Just ran some tests comparing reference results and results using -Ofast.
-Ofast does reorder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #39 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #38)
>
> Jerry, what Netlib code were you basing your code on?
http://www.netlib.org/blas/index.html#_level_3_blas_tuned_for_single_processors_with_caches
Used the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #40 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #37)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #36)
> > #pragma GCC optimize ( "-Ofast -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller
> > -funroll-loops" )
>
Using: (I fou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jb at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #42 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Nov 15 23:03:00 2016
New Revision: 242462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242462&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-15 Jerry DeLisle
Thomas Koenig
PR l
901 - 1000 of 2279 matches
Mail list logo
