On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> (A) I see the following failures
>
> FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction4.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
> …
> FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction5.f90 -Os (test for excess errors)
>
I added a fix for this to the megapatch.
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:12:07AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 7/17/19 8:32 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > I will be away until Monday. Plenty of time for a review.
> >
> >
>
> ---snip --
>
> Something not quite right here in this comment.
>
>
> +/* A BOZ literal constant can appear in a li
(A) I see the following failures
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction4.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
…
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction4.f90 -Os (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction5.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
…
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction5.f90 -Os (test for
On 7/17/19 8:32 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
I will be away until Monday. Plenty of time for a review.
---snip --
Something not quite right here in this comment.
+/* A BOZ literal constant can appear in a limited number of contexts.
+ gfc_invalid_boz() is a help function to simplify error/war
I will be away until Monday. Plenty of time for a review.
TL;DR version:
The attached patch fixes the handling of a BOZ literal constant
in gfortran to conform to the F2018 standard.
Long version:
Highlights:
* No longer need to use -fno-range-check with BOZ
* Fixed merge_bits
* Elim
