https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 28 22:27:55 2016
New Revision: 233797
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233797&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-28 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/68147
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 28 22:27:55 2016
New Revision: 233797
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233797&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-28 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/68147
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #11)
> I was experimenting some more here a few days ago. I really think that
> inlineing shold be disabled above some threshold. On larger arrays, the
> runtime li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62278
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koeni
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Looks straightforward... let's see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66102
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jul 24 09:50:28 2017
New Revision: 250471
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250471&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-24 Thomas Koenig
Mikael Morin
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66102
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80365
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Forgot the PR in the commit message... here it is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250473&root=gcc&view=rev
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
This works now, closing.
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Still fails on current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79312
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|---
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Not a duplicate - I have a patch which fixes this one,
leaving PR 52162 unfixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--- Comme
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
This bug goes away with the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162#c8
Resolving as duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58750
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
*** Bug 58750 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80365
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79930
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81581
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jul 31 09:34:36 2017
New Revision: 250735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250735&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-31 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/81581
* m4/ifunt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81581
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org,
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Jerry,
should we also look at this when we bump the library number?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45435
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 1 17:59:11 2017
New Revision: 250791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/45435
* lang.opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79312
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 1 19:09:02 2017
New Revision: 250792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Thomas König
PR fortran/79312
* intrisic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79312
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60355
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Apparently only for implicitly-typed variables.
This works as expected:
program main
integer, bind(c) :: i
end program main
$ gfortran a.f90
a.f90:2:23:
integer, bind(c) :: i
1
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-05-12 00:00:
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
The tree dump of a slightly modified test case (just to make things
look more tidy) seems OK at first glance, but there is one strange
thing:
program main
character(1) :: s(1)
s = "a"
call printi
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The docs say
Adding this option will make the Fortran compiler put all local
arrays, even those of unknown size onto stack memory.
This is not what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52673
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50360
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017
New Revision: 250923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/68829
* doc/invo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017
New Revision: 250923
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/68829
* doc/invo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
Bug 68829 depends on bug 81701, which changed state.
Bug 81701 Summary: -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
It is now possible to use -fmax-stack-var-size with -Ofast.
Closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
In this particular case, all variables are on the stack, so this
is not a problem.
However, even a PURE function could put an array into static storage,
such
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Mine.
||2017-08-07
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Do you have a reduced test case that does not require understanding
your whole package?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||81748
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig
||2017-08-08
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Seems the output varies a bit. With current trunk, I get
the (also incorrect)
1 2
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
-Wall gives the relevant warning, as Dominique pointed out.
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
From https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-08/msg00036.html
by Luke Robinson:
module alloc_stress
type level1
real, allocatable :: var_r1(:), var_r2(:), var_r3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60355
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Aug 11 17:45:36 2017
New Revision: 251054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251054&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-11 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60355
* resolve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 60355, which changed state.
Bug 60355 Summary: [F08] constraint C519 for BIND attribute not enforced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60355
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60355
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling doduc.f90 from the pb11 benchmark suite results in the
warning
$ gfortran -O -Waggressive-loop-optimizations doduc.f90
doduc.f90:3587:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81839
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81839
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38592
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |tree-optimization
--- Comment #8 from Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38592
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-02-19 05:44:12 |2017-8-15
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Aug 16 17:21:22 2017
New Revision: 251125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-16 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/81116
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2017-08-16
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
I can see how this would be useful.
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Let's see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81974
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Aug 27 08:01:25 2017
New Revision: 251368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-27 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/81974
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81974
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81984
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
A core dump would be better.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
I expect strong negative feedback if -Wextra starts emitting
lots of warnings about code which is not problematic. This
would diminish the usefulness of -Wextra, and people will
simply remove it from their Ma
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The test case contains out-of-bounds references
to a(i) and b(i):
subroutine fn1(a, b)
real(8), intent(in) :: b(100)
real(8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
A PDT meta-bug to make them easier to find.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82173
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2017-09-11
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Test case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82184
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Richard, I think you have access to the SPEC
sources (which no gfortran maintainer has).
Could you give us a hint of what goes wrong?
||2017-09-15
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
I think this is the PR that comes as a PDF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82215
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Second thoughts on the parsing *.mod file thing... that
would not work very well because compile-time constants would
be expanded already.
A source-to-source-utility (or compiler flag) would be better.
||2017-09-21
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org,
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1
||2017-09-22
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
You have...
#define ARRAYSIZE 5
union
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82296
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Also see
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/c/ARR30-C.+Do+not+form+or+use+out-of-bounds+pointers+or+array+subscripts
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |koenigni at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Koenig ---
Just to make sure there is no double work here :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82258
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Could you try the following program:
program try_lf0030
call LF0030(10)
end
SUBROUTINE LF0030(nf10)
INTEGER ILA1(7)
INTEGER ILA2(7)
LOGICAL LLA(:,:,:,:,:,:,:)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80118
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 24 08:39:00 2017
New Revision: 253123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253123&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-24 Thomas Koenig
Steven G. Kargl
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54633
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2013-12-29 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
The first problem happens when resolving the symbol
passeverywherefcomplex_impl:
(gdb) p *sym
$5 = {name = 0x5e5c600 "passeverywherefcomplex_impl"
The offending line is
4866 if (formal->sym
|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Actually, the problem is in the program. We should warn about
this, but not repack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54633
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 24 13:51:39 2017
New Revision: 253125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/54633
* gfortran
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is a spin-off from PR 54633.
integer y((sum(minloc((/1/
end
is rejected with the (IMHO misleading) error message
integer y((sum(minloc((/1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54633
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
Bug 54613 depends on bug 54633, which changed state.
Bug 54633 Summary: ICEs and reject valid with MINLOC/MINVAL (MAXLOC/MAXVAL) due
to lacking compile-time simplification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54633
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 24 14:26:55 2017
New Revision: 253126
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253126&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/66328
* gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056
Bug 33056 depends on bug 66328, which changed state.
Bug 66328 Summary: Wrong initialization of derived-type DATA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
Bug 32834 depends on bug 66328, which changed state.
Bug 66328 Summary: Wrong initialization of derived-type DATA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
What|Removed |Added
--
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Test case committed to trunk, closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koeni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58225
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58225
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82332
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58225
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
2201 - 2300 of 3752 matches
Mail list logo
