On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> I don't know enough about Fortran to know whether the same issues arise
>> there. Perhaps in Fortran a common symbol is always a common symbol and
>> can never be a defined symbol. If that is the case then for Fortran I
>> think it w
> I don't know enough about Fortran to know whether the same issues arise
> there. Perhaps in Fortran a common symbol is always a common symbol and
> can never be a defined symbol. If that is the case then for Fortran I
> think it would be safe to change the alignment of the common symbol. Of
>
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
-fno-common on all tar
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>>> There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
>>> -fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate of failures (see
>>> discussion in
On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:30 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Why can the link editor not promote the definitions alignment
> when merging with a common with bigger alignment?
The problem is that when a common symbol is upped in alignment, but then not
chosen by ld (or worse, by the dynamic linker), but
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:59 PM, William J. Schmidt
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> > On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>> >> There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests shou
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >> There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
> >> -fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>> There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
>> -fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate of failures (see
>> discussion in 52571 and 52603).
>
>> OK for tr
On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
> -fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate of failures (see
> discussion in 52571 and 52603).
> OK for trunk?
Ok. Any other solution I think will be real work an
