[Bug fortran/116394] Memory leaks in compute_dot_product

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116394 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/116400] New: [15 Regression] Regenerated files are no longer written to the source directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116400 Bug ID: 116400 Summary: [15 Regression] Regenerated files are no longer written to the source directory Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug testsuite/116653] new test case gfortran.dg/unsigned_21.f90 from r15-3526-g113a6da9bf91c5 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116653 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at gcc

[Bug testsuite/116653] new test case gfortran.dg/unsigned_21.f90 from r15-3526-g113a6da9bf91c5 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116653 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||116025 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koeni

[Bug testsuite/116653] new test case gfortran.dg/unsigned_21.f90 from r15-3526-g113a6da9bf91c5 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116653 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/116025] Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025 Bug 116025 depends on bug 116653, which changed state. Bug 116653 Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/unsigned_21.f90 from r15-3526-g113a6da9bf91c5 fails https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116653 What|Removed

[Bug fortran/109659] New: gcc_builtin module for gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109659 Bug ID: 109659 Summary: gcc_builtin module for gfortran Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID

[Bug target/97304] Boostrap failure on freebsd: ld: error: unable to find library -lc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97304 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > > If --with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --with-ld=/usr/local/bin/ld is required then > > it needs to be documented at

[Bug tree-optimization/111917] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in as_a, at is-a.h:255 since GCC-8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111917 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|IC

[Bug tree-optimization/111916] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (the generated code hangs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111916 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|wrong code at -O1 and above |[14 Regression] wrong code

[Bug fortran/30409] [fortran] missed optimization with pure function arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||21046 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig

[Bug tree-optimization/111917] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in as_a, at is-a.h:255 since GCC-7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111917 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > If someone is worried about uninitialized variables or an executed infinite > loop, this also ICEs at -O3: > ``` > long t; > long a() { > long b = t, c = t; >

[Bug tree-optimization/111917] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in as_a, at is-a.h:255 since GCC-7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111917 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- > It does not ICE with aa90195, for which the original test case ICEs, > so it is something else (although probably related). .. or at least it does not ICE with checking disabled (to be exact).

[Bug tree-optimization/112113] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112113 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/112113] [14 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112113 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2) > According to bisection, f5fb9ff2396fd41fdd2e6d35a412e936d2d42f75 > is the first bad commit. Or, if anybody wants a link, https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=co

[Bug target/112112] Improper Arithmetic Type Conversion in s390x-linux-gnu-gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112112 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/112276] [14 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -msse4.2 since r14-4964-g7eed861e8ca3f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112276 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/111921] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with nested function after an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111921 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/112112] Improper Arithmetic Type Conversion in s390x-linux-gnu-gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112112 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-01 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/111921] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with nested function after an error since r6-205-g5c4abbb8e80153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111921 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12/13/14 Regression]|[11/12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/110116] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110116 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Looks like this has been fixed in the meantime: tkoenig@gcc188:~> gcc -O3 small.c small.c: In function 'main': small.c:6:21: warning: iteration 2147483646 invokes undefined behavior [-Waggressive-loop-opti

[Bug tree-optimization/110116] [12/13 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110116 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE |[12/13 Regression] ICE on

[Bug tree-optimization/110903] [12/13/14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- The code from comment#2 and from comment#3 no longer calls foo with current trunk, r14-5108-g751fc7bcdcdf25 . Now, to see which commit fixed it...

[Bug tree-optimization/110903] [12/13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] Dead |[12/13 Regression] Dead

[Bug tree-optimization/110903] [12/13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110903 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- The original regression was caused by r12-4526-gd8edfadfc7a979 . d8edfadfc7a9795b65177a50ce44fd348858e844 is the first bad commit commit d8edfadfc7a9795b65177a50ce44fd348858e844 Author: Aldy Hernandez Date

[Bug tree-optimization/105834] [13/14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 (trunk vs. 12.1.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105834 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/105558] simple 8-bit integer calculation fails with -O3 / march=core-avx2 on some gfortran 8/9/10 versions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105558 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Would be interesting to find what patch broke this and what patch fixed the > -mtune=generic case. It is not easy bisecting with old compilers - compilation iss

[Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Inefficient handling of 128-bit arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3) > Perhaps related to this PR: On x86_64, the following basic wrapper around > int128 addition > > __uint128_t f(__uint128_t x, __uint128_t y) { return x + y; }

[Bug modula2/111956] Many powerpc platforms do _not_ have support for IEEE754 long double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111956 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/110390] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with sel-scheduling: in av_set_could_be_blocked_by_bookkeeping_p, at sel-sched.cc:3609

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/110390] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with sel-scheduling: in av_set_could_be_blocked_by_bookkeeping_p, at sel-sched.cc:3609

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- Fixed by r14-3414-g0cfc9c953d0221: 0cfc9c953d0221ec3971a25e6509ebe1041f142e is the first new commit commit 0cfc9c953d0221ec3971a25e6509ebe1041f142e Author: Andrew MacLeod Date: Thu Aug 17 12:34:59 2023 -

[Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Inefficient handling of 128-bit arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #14) > Admittedly a single "mov" isn't much of a saving on modern architectures, > but as demonstrated by the PR, people still track the number of them. Thanks

[Bug libfortran/110966] should matmul_c8_avx512f be updated with matmul_c8_x86-64-v4.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110966 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug fortran/106402] half preicision is not supported by gfortran(real*2).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106402 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-11-13 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug rtl-optimization/110390] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with sel-scheduling: in av_set_could_be_blocked_by_bookkeeping_p, at sel-sched.cc:3609 since r13-3596-ge7310e24b1c0ca

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110390 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/110240] New: Unnecessary register move in indexed swap routine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110240 Bug ID: 110240 Summary: Unnecessary register move in indexed swap routine Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 C

[Bug rtl-optimization/110479] New: Unnecessary register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110479 Bug ID: 110479 Summary: Unnecessary register move Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimizati

[Bug tree-optimization/110481] New: Possible improvements in dense switch statement returning values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110481 Bug ID: 110481 Summary: Possible improvements in dense switch statement returning values Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug rtl-optimization/110479] Unnecessary register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110479 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Inefficient handling of 128-bit arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > This seems to be improved on trunk ... gcc is down to 37 instructions now for the original test case with -O3. icc, which appears to be best, has 33, see https

[Bug middle-end/68360] GCC bitfield processing code is very inefficient

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68360 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2015-11-16 00:00:00 |2023-7-16 CC|

[Bug fortran/111938] Missing OpenACC/Fortran handling in 'gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111938 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Severity|

[Bug tree-optimization/82450] loop flattening should be done

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82450 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- If you're looking at this, could you also look at Fortran's way of handling things, for example the test cases subroutine foo(a) implicit none real, dimension(:,:), contiguous, intent(out) :: a a = a +

[Bug fortran/116025] New: Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025 Bug ID: 116025 Summary: Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug fortran/116025] Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/116886] maxval/minval should not return empty result for empty array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116886 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/117225] ICE with -funsigned in gfc_match_sym_complex_part

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117225 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/116025] Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025 Bug 116025 depends on bug 117225, which changed state. Bug 117225 Summary: ICE with -funsigned in gfc_match_sym_complex_part https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117225 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/117225] New: ICE with -funsigned in gfc_match_sym_complex_part

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117225 Bug ID: 117225 Summary: ICE with -funsigned in gfc_match_sym_complex_part Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug fortran/117225] ICE with -funsigned in gfc_match_sym_complex_part

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117225 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-10-19 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug middle-end/116885] Wrong functionality of vararg causes malfunction or crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116885 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING CC|

[Bug libfortran/116886] New: maxval/minval should not return empty result for empty array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116886 Bug ID: 116886 Summary: maxval/minval should not return empty result for empty array Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libfortran/116886] maxval/minval should not return empty result for empty array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116886 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- The behavior for simplification is correct, as far as I understand: $ cat mv2.f90 program memain integer, dimension(0,0), parameter :: empty = reshape([(0,i=1,0)],[0,0]) print *,maxval(empty) print *,

[Bug libfortran/116886] maxval/minval should not return empty result for empty array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116886 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code CC|

[Bug middle-end/116885] Wrong functionality of vararg causes malfunction or crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116885 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jaroslav Fojtík from comment #3) > It seems to me that this problem has something to do with memcpy optimised > for AVX, that newly requests everything to be alligned. As shown by the valgrind

[Bug middle-end/116885] Wrong functionality of vararg causes malfunction or crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116885 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ABI | --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---

[Bug fortran/116025] Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #1) > Thomas, shall we close this one? It's not yet complete. A few intrinsics are still missing, and I also want to get C interop up and running.

[Bug fortran/118337] [15 Regression] Fortran *.mod compatibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118337 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Probably safest to bump the module version

[Bug fortran/118336] New: -freport-bug does nothing for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118336 Bug ID: 118336 Summary: -freport-bug does nothing for Fortran Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/118336] -freport-bug does nothing for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118336 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- This is for Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gfortran COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ig25/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../trunk/configure --pre

[Bug fortran/118337] [15 Regression] Fortran *.mod compatibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118337 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #6) > It is clear that one cannot have 2-way compatibility. > > But I wish we could have a limited version of backward-compatibility, > i.e. trying to consume older module

[Bug fortran/117798] Audit intrinsic subprograms with scalar INTENT(OUT) character strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117798 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/117798] Audit intrinsic subprograms with scalar INTENT(OUT) character strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117798 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- F2023 states The following Fortran 2018 features might have a different interpretation under this document. After an allocatable deferred length character variable is assigned a value by an IOMSG= or ERRMS

[Bug target/118743] Inefficient integer calling for little-endian aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118743 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Target||aarch64- --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koe

[Bug target/118743] New: Inefficient integer calling for little-endian aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118743 Bug ID: 118743 Summary: Inefficient integer calling for little-endian aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/88124] Wrong results with procedure in seperate file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88124 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/56423] F08/0071: Shall reject invalid Vector subscript target with Pointer assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56423 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2015-10-10 00:00:00 |2025-2-9 CC|

[Bug fortran/99302] untranslated diagnostic from gfc_compare_interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99302 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconf

[Bug fortran/118159] link from Fortran documentation, coco is now an online casino

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118159 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/118159] link from Fortran documentation, coco is now an online casino

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118159 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug bootstrap/93765] Bootstrap comparison failure; gcc/tree-vect-loop.o differs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93765 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/118831] C function with variables arguments called from fortran on ARM architecture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/118831] C function with variables arguments called from fortran on ARM architecture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Can stdarg functions (say void foo (int, ...); or for C23 void bar (...); > too) be represented in C interop? No, these are not interoperable.

[Bug fortran/118831] C function with variables arguments called from fortran on ARM architecture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118831 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to jcldc13 from comment #10) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > > Note, it is wrong even on x86_64. For varargs functions, %rax needs to be > > number of floating point arguments in

[Bug fortran/118845] [15 regression] ICE when building lapack-3.12.0 on x86 (compare_parameter, at fortran/interface.cc:2521)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118845 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/118359] New: -fc-prototypes is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118359 Bug ID: 118359 Summary: -fc-prototypes is incomplete Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran A

[Bug fortran/118359] -fc-prototypes is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118359 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/116025] Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/116732] [meta-bug] Fortran 202y support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116732 Bug 116732 depends on bug 116025, which changed state. Bug 116025 Summary: Experimental implementation of unsigned integers for Fortran https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116025 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug fortran/118432] New: Test cases failing when gfc_code.ext is turned into a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118432 Bug ID: 118432 Summary: Test cases failing when gfc_code.ext is turned into a struct Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/118432] Test cases failing when gfc_code.ext is turned into a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118432 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-01-12 Assignee|unassigne

[Bug fortran/118432] Test cases failing when gfc_code.ext is turned into a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118432 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Simple and obvious fix: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.cc b/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.cc index 3a3328d4450..6ee6ce4c3ff 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/frontend-pas

[Bug fortran/118432] Test cases failing when gfc_code.ext is turned into a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118432 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig --- Right now, I am doing unsigned**unsigned. This is already a bit larger than I originally thought. After this is committed, we can still discuss how to extend it, I think. There is actually an interesting

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #24 from Thomas Koenig --- Considering that ctz is rather expensive, comparable to an integer multiplication, I think I will do away with this optimization altogether - we are spending log2(n) imuls anyway. I think the library versi

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #25 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 60283 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60283&action=edit Preliminary patch Here's a mostly-complete patch. It lacks test cases and and ChangeLog entries, but should w

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig --- There is a bit more that can be done when the exponent is known at compile time. For example, unsigned(kind=4) :: x y = x**13u could be translated as if (x & 7 == 0) /* Check for divisibili

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to kargls from comment #2) > Not Thomas, but ... > > https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-116.txt > > The exponentiation operator ** shall not be applied to UNSIGNED values. That was something

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/118359] -fc-prototypes is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118359 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to kargls from comment #14) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #13) > > (In reply to kargls from comment #12) > > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9) > > > > Question is, what should we

[Bug fortran/118499] Exponentiation of UNSIGNED is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- Question is, what should we permit... For 'normal' operations, only unsigned op unsigned is permitted, so unsigned**unsigned is obviously ok. What about (integer|real|complex)**unsigned? What about unsign

[Bug fortran/118862] UBSAN: shift exponent too large since r15-7345-gc2a0ee58865c5a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118862 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- > I'll take a look. Found it, will probably submit tomorrow.

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [12/13/14/15 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?88/9/10/11/12 suck

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #77 from Thomas Koenig --- Just wondering... has this been fixed in the meantime?

[Bug fortran/24878] subroutine getting called illegally as a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24878 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/24878] subroutine getting called illegally as a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24878 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/99302] untranslated diagnostic from gfc_compare_interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99302 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2) > Maybe you can ask Martin Sebor for details regarding the diagnostics. > > There are several other code smells in that area, such as: "Code smells" is not a prob

[Bug fortran/102390] IMPLICIT SAVE not properly implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102390 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >