https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 42250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42250&action=edit
Proposed patch
This patch is an attempt at getting rid of the lock-order
inversion. It seems to do the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Correction... the patch does not work with a simple
example such as
program main
!$OMP PARALLEL NUM_THREADS(4)
print *,"Hello, world"
!$OMP END PARALLEL
end program main
Some more digging to do...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Bijan Chokoufe from comment #30)
`bzip2 -d diff.bz2`) as I have no idea what to look for:
> https://cloud.bijancn.de/index.php/s/ta2XMIVWhTUGAvX
Thanks. I looked, but didn't find anything...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig ---
Running your testsuite on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
with a current trunk and "make -k check" gets me
PASS: mlm_matching_isr.run
but also a few more failures:
FAIL: bloch_vectors.run
FAIL: processes.run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #33 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Could you tell me how just to run a single testcase?
Well, I figured that one out.
Quite interesting, a different error with valgrind:
| Events: event normalization mode '1'
==49974== Source and destin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Bijan Chokoufe from comment #34)
> Does mlm_matching_isr.run also work if you remove all uses of volatile in
> src/shower/*f90?
Yes, the test was with the original tarball mentioned in
comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #38 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Bijan Chokoufe from comment #37)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #35)
>
> > [tkoenig@gcc1-power7 shower]$ pwd
> > /home/tkoenig/whizard-2.4.1/src/shower
> > [tkoenig@gcc1-power7 showe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #41 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41221
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41221&action=edit
Config log for PowerPC
Here's the config.log for PowerPC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #42 from Thomas Koenig ---
Using ./configure --with-precision=extended
results in
checking whether gfortran supports c_float128 (a gfortran extension)... yes
checking the requested floating point precision... extended
configure: err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #46 from Thomas Koenig ---
gcc version 7.0.1 20170227 (experimental) (GCC)
also fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #47 from Thomas Koenig ---
I'll try some bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #49 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Bijan Chokoufe from comment #39)
> Configure fails when I set FCFLAGS='-m32' with
> **
> configure: error: Fortran compiler does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #50 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #48)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #47)
> > I'll try some bisection.
>
> Did you get the full tarball running on an x86_64?
Yes, at least up to the point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #53 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #51)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #50)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #48)
> > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #47)
> > > > I'll tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #55 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #52)
> I tried again to make a more reduced test case, but I couldn't really
> separate it from library structure of our code. Do you think you can work
> with the giv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #57 from Thomas Koenig ---
And here comes the first problem...
Running with rev 243584 (as a bisection) results in
very many failed tests like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #58 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #57)
> And here comes the first problem...
>
> Running with rev 243584 (as a bisection) results in
> very many failed tests like
*** Error in `/home/ig25/Downloads/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #60 from Thomas Koenig ---
r242780 works.
With both r243586 and r244391, plus the patch for r245191
applied, I got numerous failures in the test suite.
Apparently, something else was wrong for some time, which
blocks the attempt at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77661
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|--enable-maintain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77661
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Apr 19 18:49:29 2017
New Revision: 247006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247006&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-19 Thomas Koenig
Tobias Burnus
PR bootstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77661
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #62 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #61)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #60)
> > r242780 works.
> >
> > With both r243586 and r244391, plus the patch for r245191
> > applied, I got numerous f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #64 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #63)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #62)
> > I am currently at a loss how to proceed.
>
> Darn Did you apply the patch from PR79344?
Yes.
What I get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #68 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41247
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41247&action=edit
Patch to be able to run the test case
With this patch on top of the relevant version, it is actually
possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |7.2
--- Comment #70 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #71 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41260&action=edit
Proposed patch (reverting all updates to reg-stack.c after r244920
If no other solution can be found, we can a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #73 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41265
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41265&action=edit
Difference in assembly with and without the patch
This is the difference in assembly generated. *.withpatch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #74 from Thomas Koenig ---
This part looks wrong:
@@ -19206,8 +19196,9 @@
movq%r11, 112(%rsp)
movq%rax, 96(%rsp)
callintegral_over_z_part_isr.6797
-.LVL1464:
+.LVL1465:
.loc 1 3089 0
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #75 from Thomas Koenig ---
To provide some more context, here is the code as
compiled with the patch (correct version):
callintegral_over_z_part_isr.6797
.LVL1464:
.loc 1 3089 0
fldt496(%rsp)
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #81 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #79)
> Created attachment 41269 [details]
> gcc7-pr79430.patch
>
> Untested patch meant for 7.x, which just modifies reg-stack.c and nothing
> else.
> Unlike the abov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 1 17:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* fronten
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since the introduction of blocked matmul, we unconditionally
allocate a 65536*sizeof(rtype) buffer on the stack, 0.5 MiB for
double precision.
We should try to reduce this; I
||2017-05-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41307&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80615
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.1.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80615
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] Boostrap|[8 Regression] Boostrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
Bug 80602 depends on bug 80615, which changed state.
Bug 80615 Summary: [8 Regression] Boostrap fails because genmddeps nees
not-yet-built libiberty.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80615
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80615
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
This is the idea:
--- matmul_internal.m4 (revision 247566)
+++ matmul_internal.m4 (working copy)
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ sinclude(`matmul_asm_'rtype_code`.m4')dnl
i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
s/t1_dim = (a_dim1-1) * 256 + b_dim1);/t1_dim = (a_dim1-1) * 256 + b_dim1;/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig ---
I think there still is one thing to do.
Apparently, AMD CPUs (which use only vanilla at
the moment) are slightly faster with -mprefer-avx128,
and they should be much faster if they have FMA3.
Unless I miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 8 17:56:13 2017
New Revision: 247753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-08 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80602
* m4/matmu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79930
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 8 18:22:44 2017
New Revision: 247755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-08 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/79930
* fronten
||2017-05-09
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|VLA usage in libgfortran; |[8 Regression] VLA usage in
|nvptx target: "
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
There are some new failures with matmul with -m32, reported e.g. at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-05/msg00027.html (testsuite
failures) and https://gcc.gnu.org/ml
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2017-05-10
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80687
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 10 15:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80687
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 10 15:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80687
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80687
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Might want to backport the 8.0 patch to gcc-7, but only
after the dust from the regressions this caused has settled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80765
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 15 20:06:06 2017
New Revision: 248074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80765
* m4/matmu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80765
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
I just committed r248074 which I suspect is the same problem
(the fix for PR 80765).
If you could just upgrade to the most recent trunk (only
need to upgrade libgfortran, really) an check if the fix
also wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80610
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Status|RESOLVED
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41394&action=edit
Benchmark of straight DO loops vs. library version
Some numbers from
https://groups.google.com/forum/
||2017-05-22
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Does the problem still persist with 7.1?
Also, please try reducing the problem to something we can
||
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41405&action=edit
Pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41406&action=edit
Additional files for the previous patch
Here are the new files for the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41405|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28004
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-07-03 21:06:36 |2017-5-24
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Ko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 24 18:44:35 2017
New Revision: 248425
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/66094
* fronten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 66094, which changed state.
Bug 66094 Summary: Handle transpose(A) in inline matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #37 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 25 21:51:27 2017
New Revision: 248472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248472&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-25 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/78379
* Make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2017-05-26
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
I broke it, so I'll fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80889
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri May 26 17:16:35 2017
New Revision: 248519
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248519&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-26 Thomas Koenig
PR boostrap/80889
* acinclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80889
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Again: Add a new feature, find an old bug...
Test case:
! { dg-do run }
program main
real, dimension(3,2) :: a
real, dimension(3
||2017-05-28
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80904
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|[6/7/8 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #33 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 29 06:03:23 2017
New Revision: 248553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248553&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* fronten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 37131, which changed state.
Bug 37131 Summary: inline matmul for small matrix sizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Bug 51119 depends on bug 37131, which changed state.
Bug 37131 Summary: inline matmul for small matrix sizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80894
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koeni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8)
> Fixed on trunk. If this is important enough we could backport to 7. Any
> opinions?
I'd say yes.
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|fortran |middle-end
Blocks||46476
Summary|gfortran ignores dead code |Option for generating link
|after return statement |symbol for functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
I'm trying for some bisection.
I hope this is not going to turn out as complex as PR 79430 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
236968 OK
248467 Not OK
Trying 242717 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80894
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #5)
> The problem appears to be in compiling hmmio.c. If I compile everything
> else with a compiler built from r248447 and hmmio.c from a compiler built
> with r248446 then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> Appears to happen between
Sorry,
> 241323
does indeed fail.
Didn't run the test often enough...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80945
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
1. write also fails (no surprise there)
2. ca is OK, ca(1:3) is not.
$ cat u.f90
program main
implicit none
integer:: i
integer, parameter:: N = 10
character(len=:), dimension(:),allocatable:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80945
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80945
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Really strange - the tree dumps look OK at first glance.
D.3543 = (sizetype) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <.ca>;
and later on
parm.3.dtype = ((integer(kind=8)) SAVE_EXPR << 6) + 49;
parm.3.dim[0].lbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
I thought I recognized the Maple style here :-)
Compiling with 6.3.0 on a machine with enough memory gives
(gdb) r -fdefault-integer-8 -O2 tst.f90
Starting program: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/6/f951 -fde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|amd64 Linux |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80904
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jun 2 17:44:19 2017
New Revision: 248842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248842&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-02 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80904
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80904
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jun 2 19:29:29 2017
New Revision: 248845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-02 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80904
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80904
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65542
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jun 3 11:26:38 2017
New Revision: 248855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248855&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-03 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/65542
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65542
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80975
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Restricted to the library version, the inline
version is OK:
ig25@linux-d6cw:~/Krempel/MMZero> cat t1.f90
program bogus_matmul
implicit none
real :: M(3,0), v(0), w(3)
w = 7
w = matmul(M,v)
print
2301 - 2400 of 3752 matches
Mail list logo
