Dear Mikael,
With your tweak it bootstrapped and regtested OK. Also changed the
comment after Steve's pointing out that the last sentence was
incomprehensible:-)
Committed to trunk as revision 223234.
Cheers
Paul
2015-05-16 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/65792
* trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_su
On 14/05/2015 15:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Reported by Nathan and fixed by his patch. I added the tests.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk. This should be
backported too.
While backporting to debug and profile mode I noticed that those
constructors were not the only missing ones.
Hello world,
this (rather obvious) patch fixes array declarations in deeply nested
BLOCKs.
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
Thomas
2015-05-16 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/66113
* expr.c (is_parent_of_current_ns): New function.
(check_restricted): Use it.
201
Le 16/05/2015 12:35, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
> Hello world,
>
> this (rather obvious) patch fixes array declarations in deeply nested
> BLOCKs.
>
> Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
>
OK, thanks.
Mikael
Le 15/05/2015 17:19, Steve Kargl a écrit :
> Regression tested on trunk. OK to commit?
>
Hello,
> Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
> ===
> --- gcc/fortran/decl.c(revision 223094)
> +++ gcc/fortran/decl.c(working copy)
> @@
Adding myself as Write After Approval.
Regards
Iain
---
ChangeLog | 4
MAINTAINERS | 1 +
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
--- ChangeLog
+++ ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2015-05-16 Iain Buclaw
+
+ * MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Add myself.
+
2015-05-11 Paulo Matos
* MAINTA
On 14 May 2015 at 19:47, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> On another note, I've found out why the remaining 20 symbols in my 75k
>> sample failed. They don't fail at all! It's just that they were all
>> greater than 33,000 characters in length, and my test used
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:34:57PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> My relax branch proposal works even without LTO.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I will bor
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:40:48PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> I confess the test-case-"guarded" addi pattern should have been
> expressed with a shift in addition to the multiplication.
But they wouldn't ever match so they might very well have bitrotted
by now :-(
> ("In
> addition to" as
On 14 May 2015 at 17:30, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 14 May 2015 at 15:24, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/13/2015 02:51 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>> In my tests, this gives the demangler near-complete support. Of a
>>> sample of about 75k symbols pulled from the standard library
>>> unittester, all but
* ping *
On 05/13/2015 06:58 PM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> The attached patch reverts a change I made for pr65456 which caused this
> regression and adds a check for quotes farther down in the function. This
> avoids treating a '!' in a string as a comment and wiping the rest of the
> line.
>
> I
>PR fortran/66045
>* expr.c (gfc_check_assign): Check for assignment of NULL() instead
>of the (intended) pointer assignment.
OK
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 07:52:38AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> * ping *
>
> > 2015-05-14 Jerry DeLisle
> >
> > PR fortran/65903
> > * io.c (format_lex): Change to NONSTRING when checking for
> > possible doubled quote.
> > * scanner.c (gfc_next_char_literal): Revert change fr
Le 14/05/2015 03:58, Jerry DeLisle a écrit :
> The attached patch reverts a change I made for pr65456 which caused this
> regression and adds a check for quotes farther down in the function. This
> avoids treating a '!' in a string as a comment and wiping the rest of the
> line.
>
> I found the
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 07:13:35AM +, Aditya K wrote:
> Hi,
> I have tried to refactor gimple_expr_type to make it more readable. Removed
> the switch block and redundant if.
>
> Please review this patch.
for some reason your mail client seems to be inserting non breaking
spaces all over the
On Sat, 16 May 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:40:48PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > I confess the test-case-"guarded" addi pattern should have been
> > expressed with a shift in addition to the multiplication.
>
> But they wouldn't ever match so they might very
Hello,
this is about PR61831 where in code like:
type :: string_t
character(LEN=1), dimension(:), allocatable :: chars
end type string_t
type(string_t) :: prt_in
(...)
tmp = new_prt_spec ([prt_in])
the deallocation of the argumen
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:36:38PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:40:48PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > I confess the test-case-"guarded" addi pattern should have been
> > > expressed with a shift in addition
On 05/16/2015 08:17 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
snip
>>
>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/continuation_13.f90
>> ===
>> --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/continuation_13.f90(revision 223105)
>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/con
On 05/16/2015 08:11 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 07:52:38AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>> * ping *
>>
>>> 2015-05-14 Jerry DeLisle
>>>
>>> PR fortran/65903
>>> * io.c (format_lex): Change to NONSTRING when checking for
>>> possible doubled quote.
>>> * scanne
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:19 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:34:57PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> >> My relax branch prop
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:59:56AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:19 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:34:57PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> > On Fri, M
On 16/05/15 11:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 14/05/2015 15:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Reported by Nathan and fixed by his patch. I added the tests.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk. This should be
backported too.
While backporting to debug and profile mode I noticed that tho
On 05/16/2015 10:45 AM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
--- snip ---
> Thanks Steve,
>
> Committed revision 223248.
>
>
I had some time to play with this a little more this afternoon.
I am going to commit the following little patchlet that gives us the nice
warning we should have. (After full regression
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:59:56AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:19 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:34:57PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>> On Fri
Hi,
while debugging verify_type ICE I noticed that we output debug info to slim-lto
files.
This debug info is never used for anything and should be omitted. I wonder if
this
can go also to rleease branches since it will likely make the slim files
smaller.
Of course things will change with earl
On Sat, 16 May 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:36:38PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 May 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:40:48PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > > I confess the test-case-"guarded" addi pattern sh
27 matches
Mail list logo
