||45689
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Yep, that's still missing.
I'll take a look.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
[Bug 45689] [F0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71902
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Sep 4 16:17:55 2016
New Revision: 239977
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239977&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-09-04 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/71902
* frontend
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Original bug report from John Urban, from
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-09/msg00015.html
program testit
imp
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following program segfaults:
subroutine foo(a,from,to)
integer :: from, to
real, dimension(from:to) :: a
from = from + 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77560
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
Bug 32834 depends on bug 77560, which changed state.
Bug 77560 Summary: Redefinition of lower bound in explicit-shape dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77560
What|Removed |Added
---
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|fortran |bootstrap
Host||x86_64-unknown-cygwin
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|configure-target-libgfortra |[7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77593
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Tim, can you grab a clean copy of trunk (from a Linux box or from whereever),
cooy that to your Windows machine and try again?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77694
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2016-09-26
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|INVALID |---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Helmut Schellong from comment #6)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27077
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need for the things that
are required for a bug report.
Specifically,
the preprocessed file (*.i*) that triggers the bug, generated by adding
-save-temps to the complet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27077
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
> In this case a lot of informations are not necessary.
Those bug reporting guidelines are there for a reason:
To make it easier for developers (whose time is very
limited) to quickly reproduce bugs.
Witho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27077
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38592
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
We still do the comparison, although with memcmp now.
More interesting question is if we could/should do
forward propagation of values in the front end,
or if this is something that the middle-end should,
in
||2016-10-10
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
Summary|Internal error for matmul() |[6/7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77915
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Oct 10 14:54:26 2016
New Revision: 240928
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240928&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/77915
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77915
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Oct 16 18:16:29 2016
New Revision: 241217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-16 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77915
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
This looks promising, modulo some line breaks:
Index: dependency.c
===
--- dependency.c(Revision 240928)
+++ dependency.c(Arbei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Oct 22 14:04:46 2016
New Revision: 241440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-22 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78021
* gfc_comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Oct 23 17:32:40 2016
New Revision: 241449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241449&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Oct 24 22:12:06 2016
New Revision: 241498
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241498&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-24 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
This looks quite good. Will see if it passes a regression-test.
Index: arith.c
===
--- arith.c (Revision 241590)
+++ arith.c (Arbeitsk
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
This is the correct one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Oct 30 17:48:27 2016
New Revision: 241689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/67219
* arith.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] Incorrect |[6 Regression] Incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Oct 30 18:28:33 2016
New Revision: 241690
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241690&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-30 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71902
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Oct 31 18:28:11 2016
New Revision: 241717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241717&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-31 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71902
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Nov 1 08:12:00 2016
New Revision: 241732
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241732&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-31 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71902
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70959
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69544
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Nov 1 16:18:18 2016
New Revision: 241745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/69544
* match.c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is a spin-off from PR 65944.
As noted by Dominique in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-11/msg2.html ,
gfc_match_simple_where also has an issue with not setting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78178
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
> What on earth is going on there I don't know. I think I will
> build from a clean tree and retry, and in the meantime fix
That should be PR 69544, of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69544
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Nov 1 21:16:46 2016
New Revision: 241756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78178
* match.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78178
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Nov 1 21:16:46 2016
New Revision: 241756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78178
* match.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69544
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Nov 2 20:54:29 2016
New Revision: 241802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-02 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78178
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Nov 2 20:54:29 2016
New Revision: 241802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-02 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
||2016-11-02
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Seems like allocatable character functions don't work with
-fno-automatic. The problem is not in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Question: Would it make sense to add an option so that only
matrices with size known at compile-time are inlined?
Somethin like
-finline-matmul-size-var=0 (to disable), -finline-matmul-size-fixed=5
(to inl
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
I have an idea where this comes from, and how to fix it.
Probably similar to PR 67219.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
This looks promising:
Index: arith.c
===
--- arith.c (Revision 241747)
+++ arith.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -2369,10 +2369,10 @@ gfc_complex2r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Nov 6 12:27:51 2016
New Revision: 241884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-06 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78221
* arith.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Conversion is done during the matching phase, so this is
when we warn.
The problem here, as with PR 67219, was that these warning
may be issued, and then the statement may be rejected.
If that happens, we sh
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 39973
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39973&action=edit
Patch to expose missing locations
It would be nice if we could consi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78178
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Nov 6 20:30:31 2016
New Revision: 241886
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241886&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-06 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69544
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Nov 6 20:30:31 2016
New Revision: 241886
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241886&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-06 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Fixed on all open branches, closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Nov 6 21:27:32 2016
New Revision: 241887
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241887&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-06 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78226
resolve.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's a list of the currently failing test cases.
That doesn't look to bad, problems mostly seem to be
with SELECT TYPE and ALLOCATE.
llocate_class_3.f90
allocate_with_source_16.f90
alloc_comp_class_3.f03
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Nov 7 13:46:31 2016
New Revision: 241906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78221
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's the commit, the PR number was incorrect.
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Nov 7 15:25:21 2016
New Revision: 241909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Thomas Koen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Nov 7 19:33:27 2016
New Revision: 241927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-07 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78226
* expr.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #34)
> -Ofast does reorder execution..
So does a block algorithm.
> Opinions welcome.
I'd say go for -Ofast, or at least its subset that enables
reordering of exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #38 from Thomas Koenig ---
(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" )
>
> and really
: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The doc to target_clones says
# For instance, on an x86, you could compile a function with
# `target_clones("sse4.1,avx")'. GCC creates two
||2016-11-16
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
OK, so this is more of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21278
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-02-01 18:00:00 |2016-11-16
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Ko
: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Now that a patch for PR51119 is in, we can think about
inserting processor-specific versions.
target_clones looks to be a good idea for this, see
https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #46 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #44)
> Yes I am aware of these. I was willing to live with them, but if it is a
> problem, we can remove those options easy enough.
I think it is no big deal, but on
||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Andrew,
I/O operations are not thread safe. If you enclose them
in !$omp critical, you will get the expected result:
ig25@linux-fd1f:/tmp> cat omp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78387
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 40074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40074&action=edit
Test program for benchmarks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here are some measurements with the AVX-enabling patch.
They were done on an AVX machine, namely gcc75 from the compile farm.
This was done with the command line
gfortran -static-libgfortran -finline-matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
> You may notice I was invoking the wrong executable in what I posted in
> comment #3. I did rerun the correct one several times and tried it with
> -mavx -mprefer-avx128. I get the same poor results regardl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
And one more thing.
Comparing the timing you get for the version with the target_clone
and a version using just -mavx added to the relevant line in the
Makefile, do you see a difference?
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following does not work as expected.
Either default is an invalid target for target_clones, or it is missing.
Bit of a Catch-22 there :-)
The reason why I'm interested is PR
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Target> cat t2.c
static double foo_int(double *restrict, double *restrict, int)
__attribute__ ((target_clones("avx,foo,avx2,avx512f,default"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78419
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Valgrind has some more info:
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Target> valgrind
/home/ig25/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/cc1 t2.c
==23596== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==23596== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Next question - what happens if you add
-mvzeroupper -mavx
to the line in the Makefile? Does that make a difference in speed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #11)
> One could consider running a reference matrix multiply of size 32 in a loop
> and do timing tests to determine whether to use -mprefer-avx128. 0n this
> machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
OK, I think I have a rough idea how to do this.
For querying the CPU model, we need to put the interface in
libgcc/config/i386/cpuinfo.c into a separate header.
Then we generate a list of matmul functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
OMG, the world of processors is more complicated than I thought.
So, these rather modern AMD chips support AVX, but suck at it.
Two questions:
- Can you check if -mfma3 and/or -mfma4 make any difference?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Mar 27 22:21:35 2014
New Revision: 208883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208883&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-27 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60522
* frontend-passes.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Mar 28 07:17:13 2014
New Revision: 208890
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208890&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-28 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60522
* frontend-passes.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Mar 29 11:51:17 2014
New Revision: 208934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60522
* frontend-passes.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60522
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60127
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60661
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
We have to be a bit careful about statement like
do concurrent(i=1:n, a(i)>sum(a)/n)
a(i) = a(i) * 0.5
end do
which really have to be before the execution
of the loop body itself.
at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 32598
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32598&action=edit
proposed patch
This seems to do the trick.
||2014-04-21
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Valgrind shows:
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Leak> valgrind --leak-check=full ./a.out
==4355== Memcheck
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59604
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Apr 27 10:48:56 2014
New Revision: 209836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-27 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/59604
PR fortran/58003
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Apr 27 10:48:56 2014
New Revision: 209836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-27 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/59604
PR fortran/58003
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59604
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
Bug 58003 depends on bug 59604, which changed state.
Bug 59604 Summary: Constant comparisons with -fno-range-check and int(z'...')
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59604
What|Removed |Added
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
Also see PR 55858.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60834
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 12 16:17:09 2014
New Revision: 210329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210329&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-12 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60834
* frontend-passes.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60834
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 29 12:12:00 2014
New Revision: 211052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/60834
* frontend-passes.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60834
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Original bug report from
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29163373/why-do-i-have-random-return-values-in-my-type-in-fortran-with-o2
by "Sebastian&q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
It may be target dependent. I can reproduce this on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu .
By the way, -fno-gcse cures it.
2701 - 2800 of 3755 matches
Mail list logo
