Re: [Patch, fortran] PR82923 - Automatic allocation of deferred length character using function result

The patch works as expected and fixes also PRs 66694 and 82617. Thanks, Dominique

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/85521 -- Zero length substrings in array aconstructors

Hi Steve, AFAICT the patch is missing. Thanks for working on these PRs. Dominique

Re: [patch, fortran] Simplify constants which come from parameter arrays

Hi Thomas, > Le 31 mars 2018 à 13:57, Thomas König a écrit : > > Hi Dominique, > > These have been resolved now - I have removed the invalid code > from substr_6.f90 (PR85130), and the error is now suppressed > in the attached patch. > > Re-regression-tested. OK for trunk? >

Re: [patch, fortran] Simplify constants which come from parameter arrays

Hi Thomas, If I am not mistaken, the patch causes: FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr71935.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O0 execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O1 execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O2 execution test FAIL:

Re: [patch, libgomp testsuite] Replace non-standard call abort by STOP n

Hi Thomas, The ChangeLog looks strange, but otherwise the patch applies and get rid of the abort. Looks good to me. Thanks for the work, Dominique

Re: [patch fortran] PR 84924 - Erroneous error in C_F_POINTER

Thanks for the quick review. Committed as revision r258843. Dominique > Le 25 mars 2018 à 13:20, Thomas König a écrit : > > Hi Dominique, > >> The attached patch allows scalar noninteroperable scalar derived type with >> -std=f2003 and -std=f2008. >> Regstrapped on

[patch fortran] PR 84924 - Erroneous error in C_F_POINTER

The attached patch allows scalar noninteroperable scalar derived type with -std=f2003 and -std=f2008. Regstrapped on x86_64-apple-darwin17. OK for trunk? Regards, Dominique 2018-03-25 Seth Johnson Dominique d'Humieres PR

Re: [PATCH][darwin] Work around missing LTO debug support for Mach-O, PR82005

> Le 1 mars 2018 à 09:37, Richard Biener a écrit : > > In the PR Dominique says "With the patch the failures (-m32/-m64) went > down from 1059 to 467" which is a nice improvement. I'm not set up > to bootstrap on darwin but I expect Dominque did so. Indeed! > > So - ok

Re: [Patch fortran] PR32957 - C/Fortran interoperability and -fdefault-integer-8

Thanks for the quick review, committed as r257985. I have spotted a few similar issues in my recent testing and I have problem with gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_10.f03 when using -fdefault-integer-8: /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_10.f03:66:31: integer(c_int) function

[Patch fortran] PR32957 - C/Fortran interoperability and -fdefault-integer-8

Hi all, I have noticed a recent interest to fix problems with -fdefault-integer-8. Please don’t forget to mark new PRs as blocking pr32770. I have also posted new results for the test suite. I think it is a good time to submit the updated attached patch fixing some C/Fortran interoperability

[PATCH Fortran committed] PR 84354 - Replace '%qs' with %qs in fortran/decl.c

Patch committed as obvious at revision r257750. Dominique --- trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c2018/02/16 17:42:08 257749 +++ trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c2018/02/16 18:01:02 257750 @@ -3302,7 +3302,7 @@ kind_expr = gfc_copy_expr (c1->initializer); else if

Re: [PATCH] Fix handling of arguments in statement functions

Hi Steve, With your patch applied to revision r257559, I get the following failures /opt/gcc/p_work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/statement_function_3.f:5:72: Warning: Obsolescent feature: Statement function at (1) /opt/gcc/p_work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/statement_function_3.f:3:24: Error:

[RFA PATCH] Bug 84094 - several correctness issues in gfortran.dg

Is the following patch OK? For associate_23.f90 I have restricted should_work to two elements, an alternative would be to use ASSOCIATE(should_work=>char_var_dim(1:3)); any preference? Note that none of these invalid codes are detected by gfortran, except intrinsic_actual_4.f90 which gives a

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37577 - [meta-bug] change internal array descriptor format for better syntax, C interop TR, rank 15

Dear Paul, The test suite passed without new regression with both -m32 and -m64. Thanks for the work, Dominique

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths

n, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Janne Blomqvist >> <blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Dominique d'Humières >>> <domi...@tournesol.lps.ens.fr> wrote: >>>> I have finally bootstrapped gfortran with the two patches

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths

I have finally bootstrapped gfortran with the two patches applied and the spurious warnings with -Wall are now gone (limited testing), but I see a regression for gfortran.dg/string_1.f90 due to an additional error /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/string_1.f90:13:15: print *, len(s)

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534, 83704 Large character lengths

Hi Janne, With this patch, bootstrap fails with ../../work/gcc/fortran/array.c: In function 'bool gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor(gfc_expr*)': ../../work/gcc/fortran/array.c:2062:36: error: unknown conversion type character 'l' in format [-Werror=format=] current_length,

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR83076 - [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_deallocate_scalar_with_status, at fortran/trans.c:1598

It also fixes pr78983 and partially pr80235. Thanks Dominique > Le 27 déc. 2017 à 19:04, Thomas Koenig a écrit : > > Hi Paul, > > by the way, the patch is OK for trunk. It is just gcc-7 that I am > worried about. > > Regards > > Thomas

Re: [patch, lingfortran] Bug 83560 - list-directed formatting of INTEGER is missing plus on output

Dear Jerry, The lines +a=12.3456 and +open(unit=10,sign='plus') in gfortran.dg/integer_plus.f90 could probably be removed. >From comment 2 in the PR (and the attached test), it seems that the reporter >is expecting sign=‘plus’ to apply also to namelists, which is not the case >with this

Re: PING [RFC gfortran] PR53478 - gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

Committed as revision r255530. Thanks for the review. Dominique > Le 10 déc. 2017 à 17:22, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> a écrit : > > Patch waiting for comment at > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-11/msg00067.html > > TIA > > Dominique >

PING [RFC gfortran] PR53478 - gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

Patch waiting for comment at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-11/msg00067.html TIA Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR83076 - [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_deallocate_scalar_with_status, at fortran/trans.c:1598

Dear Paul, > Bootstrapped and regtested on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk? See my comment 7 in the PR. Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR78990 [5/6/7 Regression] ICE when assigning polymorphic array function result

Looks good to me (as in "pass all my tests"). Thanks, Dominique > Le 18 nov. 2017 à 14:02, Paul Richard Thomas > a écrit : > > Dear Dominique, > > Please find attached a revised patch that I believe fixes the problem > that you found. The changes are the

Re: [PATCH] Fix pr81706 tests on darwin

Committed as revision r254770. Thanks for the review. Dominique > Le 13 nov. 2017 à 18:26, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> a écrit : > > On Nov 12, 2017, at 6:05 AM, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >> >> The following pa

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR78990 [5/6/7 Regression] ICE when assigning polymorphic array function result

Hi Paul, Your patch fixes the ICE and pass the tests. However I see At line 22 of file pr78990.f90 Fortran runtime error: Attempting to allocate already allocated variable ‘return_t1' for the original tests (with mold or source). This runtime error depends on the options: % gfc pr78990.f90 %

Re: [PATCH] Fixes for PR68356, PR81210, and PR81693

> Le 13 nov. 2017 à 18:40, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> a écrit : > > On Nov 12, 2017, at 6:58 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Dominique d'Humières >> <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >>> T

[PATCH] Fixes for PR68356, PR81210, and PR81693

The following patch fixes PR68356, PR81210, and PR81693 on darwin. --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c2016-01-28 00:30:03.0 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c 2017-11-11 17:16:58.0 +0100 @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ /* { dg-do run } */ +/* {

[PATCH] Fix pr81706 tests on darwin

The following patch fixes pr81706 tests on darwin --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr81706.c 2017-10-26 07:16:18.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr81706.c 2017-11-11 16:02:36.0 +0100 @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ /* PR libstdc++/81706 */ /* { dg-do compile } */

[RFC gfortran] PR53478 - gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

This patch implement the requirement > ... Furthermore, a binding label shall not be > the same as the global identifier of any other global entity, ignoring > differences in case." While looking at the code, I noticed that several %s should be %qs. This is fixed as well by the patch along with

Re: Restore functional DONT_USE_BUILTIN_SETJMP support

> Le 10 oct. 2017 à 11:53, Eric Botcazou a écrit : > >> This cause >> >> % /opt/gcc/gcc8w/bin/g++ -std=c++11 -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions >> /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr62079.C -c -m32 >> /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr62079.C: In function 'int main()': >>

Re: Restore functional DONT_USE_BUILTIN_SETJMP support

> The attached patch replaces it with an ad-hoc definition of setjmp, … This cause % /opt/gcc/gcc8w/bin/g++ -std=c++11 -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr62079.C -c -m32 /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr62079.C: In function 'int main()':

Re: [PATCH] Fortran -- Handle BOZ in accordance with F2008/2015.

> Le 7 oct. 2017 à 17:48, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> a > écrit : > > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:37:03PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> (4) Compiling >> >> print *, INT(z'',4) >> end >> >> gives >&g

Re: [PATCH] Fortran -- Handle BOZ in accordance with F2008/2015.

Thanks for working on the issue. While testing your patch I have found the following problems: (1) Typo in gcc/fortran/array.c + /* If an array contains a BT_BOZ, then array elements need to be converted + an INTEGER. This is an GNU Fortran extension. Mixing BOZ and non-BOZ missing ‘to’?

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR77296 - [F03] Compiler Error with allocatable string and associate

Dear Paul, > The attached patch fixes the PR and most of the remaining, if not all, > problems associated with deferred string length targets in the > associate construct. The patch works as expected. It also fixes pr60458 and its duplicate pr65187. Thanks for working on this issue, Dominique

Re: [PATCH gfortran v2] PR 61450: ICE in gfc_global_used()

Committed as revision r253328 with the change logs 2017-10-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/61450 * parse.c (gfc_global_used): Replace the gfc_internal_error with an error. 2017-10-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR

Re: [PATCH gfortran v2] PR 61450: ICE in gfc_global_used()

t;Global name %qs at %L is already being used at %L", + sym->name, where, >where); +} } I have also tried to avoid the nested IFs following the Thomas’ suggestion to use label = sym->binding_label ? sym->binding_label : sym->name; but this does not

Re: [RFA gfortran] PR 25071: dummy argument larger than actual argument

Committed as revisions r253286 and r253287. Dominique > Le 29 sept. 2017 à 15:07, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> a écrit : > > Thanks for the quick review. The change logs are > > 2017-09-29 Dominique d'Humieres <domi...@lps.ens.fr>

Re: [RFA gfortran] PR 25071: dummy argument larger than actual argument

* gfortran.dg/gomp/udr8.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/warn_argument_mismatch_1.f90: Add -std=legacy to the dg-options. Dominique > Le 28 sept. 2017 à 14:57, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> a écrit : > > Hi all, > > In the PR there was some

[RFA gfortran] PR 25071: dummy argument larger than actual argument

Hi all, In the PR there was some consensus to turn the warnings into errors. This is what the patch does: the warnings are kept with -std=legacy, errors are emitted otherwise. I am sure it may exist a better solution, but I did not find it. While regtesting I have found several regressions

[PATCH gfortran] PR 61450: ICE in gfc_global_used()

Rebased FX’s patch. Tested on x86_64-apple-darwin16.Is it OK with the proper log entries added? TIA Dominique diff -up ../_clean/gcc/fortran/parse.c gcc/fortran/parse.c --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/parse.c 2017-01-22 20:50:56.0 +0100 +++ gcc/fortran/parse.c 2017-01-24

[patch, fortran, committed] Fix PR 79612

Patch committed after approval by Thomas Koenig on IRC Dominique

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82018: -Wextra should imply -Wconversion-extra

> Le 19 sept. 2017 à 21:59, Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de> a écrit : > > Am 18.09.2017 um 11:50 schrieb Dominique d'Humières: >> Warning: Conversion from 'REAL(4)' to 'REAL(8)' at (1) [-Wconversion-extra] > > Not me (not in the general case) > >>

Re: [PATCH] [i386, libgcc] PR 82196 -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues emits wrong AVX/SSE MOV

This patch (r252896) breaks bootstrap on x86_64-apple-darwin10 configured with ../work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc8w --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,ada,lto --with-gmp=/opt/mp-new --with-system-zlib --with-isl=/opt/mp-new --enable-lto --enable-plugin

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82018: -Wextra should imply -Wconversion-extra

As said in bugzilla, I am against this change. If you want to use -Wconversion-extra, just add it to your favorite options. -Wconversion-extra is extremely noisy and -Wextra has been stable for some years. IMO we cannot afford to have people complaining about the change. If you really want a

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

As said in bugzilla (1) real(16) is an order of magnitude slower than real(8) for the codes I have tested (a long time ago). So its real utility is quite low. (2) I think your time would be better used by dealing with your assigned PRs. But now the wasted time is done, I don’t have further

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR82173 (PDT) - [meta-bug] Parameterized derived type errors

Dear Paul, I have been playing with the patch and found that the following variant of the test for pr82168 module mod implicit none integer, parameter :: dp = kind (0.0d0) type, public :: v(z, k) integer, len :: z integer, kind :: k = kind(0.0) real(kind = k) :: e(z) end type v end

Re: [PATCH gfortran] PR53542 USE-associated variables shows original instead of renamed symbol name

Committed as revision r250762. Dominique

[PATCH gfortran] PR53542 USE-associated variables shows original instead of renamed symbol name

Dear all, I am planning to commit the following patch as obvious (once Tobias has done the debugging) unless someone objects in the coming days. Cheers, Dominique 2017-07-27 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/53542 * expr.c (gfc_check_init_expr): Use the

[Patch Fortran committed] PR81341 - trunk/gcc/fortran/class.c:313: redundant condition ?

I have committed as obvious the following patch at revision r250083 --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/class.c 2017-04-14 23:53:52.0 +0200 +++ gcc/fortran/class.c 2017-07-08 12:25:51.0 +0200 @@ -310,7 +310,6 @@ class_array_ref_detected (gfc_ref *ref, else if (ref->next &&

[Patch committed] Bug 81033 - [8 Regression] Revision r249019 breaks bootstrap on darwin

Patch --- ../_clean/gcc/config/darwin.c 2017-01-01 17:39:06.0 +0100 +++ gcc/config/darwin.c 2017-07-03 14:21:19.0 +0200 @@ -3683,11 +3683,9 @@ default_function_sections: void darwin_function_switched_text_sections (FILE *fp, tree decl, bool new_is_cold) { - char

[PATCH Fortran] Bug 79866 - diagnostics: typo in "Variable %s at %L of type EVENT_TYPE"

If there is no objection, I am planning to commit the following patch as obvious. Cheers, Dominique 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/79866 * resolve.c (resolve_symbol): Fix typo. 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR

[PATCH fortran] Bug 79843 - diagnostics: missing word in fortran/symbol.c, conflict_std

If there is no objection, I am planning to commit the following patch as obvious. Cheers, Dominique 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/79843 * symbol.c (check_conflict): Add missing "conflicts". 2017-07-01 Dominique d'Humieres

Re: [Patch testsuite]

> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> a écrit : > > On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >> >> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? > > Ok. As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers,

[Patch testsuite]

Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-17 17:55:51.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-25 18:01:52.0 +0200 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* { dg-options "-O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA" } */ /* { dg-skip-if

Re: [patch, libfortran, RFC] Speed up cshift with array shift

Hi Thomas, On my machine I get the following timings without the patch cpu time cshift dim=1 0.490763009 cpu time do loop dim=15.57969809E-02 cpu time cshift dim=2 0.416319966 cpu time do loop dim=2 0.187106013 cpu time cshift dim=31.37362707 cpu time do loop

Re: [PATCH, GCC/LTO, ping] Fix PR69866: LTO with def for weak alias in regular object file

The new test fails on darwin with the usual FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/pr69866 c_lto_pr69866_0.o-c_lto_pr69866_1.o link, -O0 -flto -flto-partition=none IMO it requires a /* { dg-require-alias "" } */ directive. TIA Dominique

Re: [patch, libfortran] Speed up cshift for dim > 1

Hi Thomas, Your patch works as advertised! For the record, the following CSHIFT is still 4 times slower than the DO loop td(:,:) = cshift(array=t(:,:), shift=vect(:), dim=1) Thanks for working on this issue. Dominique

Re: Reorgnanization of profile count maintenance code, part 1

> I seeing the following error while building aarch64-elf: Same thing on darwin!-( TIA Dominique

Fwd: [PATCH, gfortran] Cleanup the submodule tests

> Début du message réexpédié : > > De: Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> > Objet: Rép : [PATCH, gfortran] Cleanup the submodule tests > Date: 4 juin 2017 à 14:52:36 UTC+2 > À: Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> > Cc: Paul Richard Thomas <pa

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements

> Le 1 juin 2017 à 16:19, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> a écrit : > > I see > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/deferred_character_2.f90 -O1 execution test > FAIL: gfortran.dg/deferred_character_2.f90 -O2 execution test > FAIL: gfortran.dg/deferred_character_2.f90

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements

> Le 1 juin 2017 à 11:30, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> a écrit : > > >> Le 31 mai 2017 à 21:03, Nicolas Koenig <koeni...@student.ethz.ch> a écrit : >> >> Hello Dominique, >> >> attached is the next try, this time without stupidi

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements

> Le 31 mai 2017 à 21:03, Nicolas Koenig a écrit : > > Hello Dominique, > > attached is the next try, this time without stupidities (I hope). Both test > cases you posted don't ICE anymore. > > Ok for trunk? > > Nicolas > Preliminary tests look OK, full testing

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements

> Le 31 mai 2017 à 17:40, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> a écrit : > > If I am not mistaken, compiling the following code with the patch applied simpler test print *,(huge(0),i=1,6) ! print*,(i,i=1,6) ! print*,(i,i=1,6,1) end > > g

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements

If I am not mistaken, compiling the following code with the patch applied program test_ivs use iso_varying_string implicit none type(varying_string),dimension(:,:),allocatable :: array2d type(varying_string) :: extra integer :: i,j allocate(array2d(2,3)) extra = "four"

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements

> Le 29 mai 2017 à 17:49, Nicolas Koenig a écrit : > > Hello Dominique, > > mea culpa, their was a bit confusion with the file being open in emacs > and vi at the same time. Attached is the new patch with the #define removed. > > Nicolas > Thanks for the quick fix!

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements

Hi Nicolas, Updating gfortran with your patch fails with ../../work/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c: In function 'bool traverse_io_block(gfc_code*, bool*, gfc_code*)': ../../work/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c:1067:20: error: expected unqualified-id before '(' token #define swap(x, y) (x) ^=

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

> Le 19 mai 2017 à 19:26, Bernd Edlinger a écrit : > > No, unfortunately it looks like incremental does not work in this case. > > You can try to remove gcc/s-gtyp-input, maybe it un-breaks your > build. However, I gave up at that point and did a full bootstrap >

Re: [PATCH] Try harder to fix recently introduced crashes in ggc_collect

Hi Bernd, Your patches are causing troubles when I try to do "incremental updates »: After revision r248290 it fails with ../../work/gcc/cp/init.c:4916:10: fatal error: gt-cp-init.h: No such file or directory #include "gt-cp-init.h » and after r248242 with

Re: PATCH ATTACHED Re: [PATCH, Fortran] PR78659 Spurious "requires DTIO" reported against namelist statement

Dear Jerry, > And the actual patch ... Are you sure this the right patch? It seems mostly applied on trunk. TIA Dominique PS I saw some ‘return 1;’ which should probably ‘return true;’

Re: [PATCH, Fortran] PR 80668: wrong error message with -finit-derived

> Le 9 mai 2017 à 18:15, Fritz Reese a écrit : > >> (1) you don’t need the lines (as in "please don’t use them") >> >> + >> +! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "pr80668" } } > > I will remove the "dg-final" lines. > >> >> (2) I don’t understand the comments after

[PATCH, committed] PR80611 [8 regression] test case gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 fails starting with r247495

I just committed a patch at revision r247803 with updated dg-final regexps (approved by Rich in bugzilla). Dominique

Re: [PATCH, Fortran] PR 80668: wrong error message with -finit-derived

Fritz, Thanks for the quick fix, IMO on the obvious side. Two minor nits: (1) you don’t need the lines (as in "please don’t use them") + +! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "pr80668" } } (2) I don’t understand the comments after 'INTEGER,DIMENSION(:),POINTER :: dist’. TIA Dominique PS The

Re: [PATCH, gfortran] Cleanup the submodule tests

switch $opt { +"line" { +lappend grep_out [concat $i $match] +} +} +} +} else { +lappend grep_out $match + } +}

Re: [PATCH] Cleanup dg directives

Committed as revision r246940. Dominique > Le 15 avr. 2017 à 16:56, Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> a écrit : > > 2017-04-15 16:46 GMT+02:00 Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr>: >> I am planning to commit as obvious the following changes > > Sure! B

Re: [PATCH, gfortran] Cleanup the submodule tests

> Le 15 avr. 2017 à 17:13, Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> a écrit : > > 2017-04-15 15:57 GMT+02:00 Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr>: >> >>> Le 15 avr. 2017 à 13:00, Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Dominiq

Re: [PATCH] Cleanup dg directives

> Le 15 avr. 2017 à 16:56, Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> a écrit : > > 2017-04-15 16:46 GMT+02:00 Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr>: >> I am planning to commit as obvious the following changes > > Sure! But ... > > >> --- ../_clean/gcc/t

[PATCH] Cleanup dg directives

I am planning to commit as obvious the following changes --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/deferred_character_3.f90 2015-11-15 15:12:11.0 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/deferred_character_3.f90 2017-04-15 11:43:05.0 +0200 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -! {dg_do run } +! {

Re: [PATCH, gfortran] Cleanup the submodule tests

> Le 15 avr. 2017 à 13:00, Janus Weil a écrit : > > Hi Dominique, > > if I'm not mistaken, the cleanup of module file in the testsuite is > done automatically by now, right? Couldn't one do the same also for > submodules? > > Cheers, > Janus > This is indeed doable, but

[PATCH, gfortran] Cleanup the submodule tests

Hi! Unless someone objects, I am planning to commit the following cleanup --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_17.f082016-08-24 21:57:16.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_17.f08 2017-04-15 10:19:32.0 +0200 @@ -25,3 +25,4 @@ end submodule

[PATCH, gfortran, committed] PR59910 ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:5327

Patch committed to the gcc5 branch 2017-04-14 Dominique d'Humieres Backport from trunk 2015-11-18 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/59910 PR fortran/80388 * primary.c (gfc_match_structure_constructor): Reduce a

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR34360 (Comment 28) - ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer

The original test in pr51218 is also miscomputed with the patch: Before t: Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference. Dominique > Le 9 avr. 2017 à 16:41, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> a écrit : > > Dear Paul, > > Your

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR34360 (Comment 28) - ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer

Dear Paul, Your patch fixes the tests in pr34640 comments 20 and 28 (I didn’t test the variants in comment 27) and in pr57733. The tests in pr34640 in comments 0, 3, and 5, as well in all the other duplicates still fail. Thanks for working on the issue, Dominique

Re: [PATCH] Bump the default thread stack size on Darwin in libgomp (PR libgomp/79876)

> Le 3 avr. 2017 à 19:00, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:56:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 04/01/2017 06:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> Apparently Darwin has insane default stack size for pthread_create >>> unless overridden through

Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c

> Le 27 mars 2017 à 20:34, Marek Polacek a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:18:46AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: >> Marek, >> >> Flame wars can be a little fun once in a while. >> >> I had previously tried the /* Fall through */ trick and it did not work as >>

Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c

> > If he added a new option affecting libgfortran, then he should > > fix up libgfortran. > > He didn't add the warning to specifically annoy fortran developers. > It is trivial to add seven gcc_fallthrough() or breaks for someone who > knows the code and the person who added the warning

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR69498 Fix ICE on unexpected submodule

Dear Nicolas, A long time ago Paul sent me the following patch that fixes all three submodule ICEs in pr69498 Index: gcc/fortran/module.c === *** gcc/fortran/module.c(revision 236994) --- gcc/fortran/module.c

Re: [patch, libgfortran] PR78881 [F03] reading from string with DTIO procedure does not work properly

The patch works as expected. Note that the line ! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "t_m" } } in dtio_26.f03 and dtio_27.f03 can/should be removed IIRC. Cheers, Dominique

Re: [PATCH gfortran] Fix PRs 79602, 79844, 79853, 79859, and 80011.

Committed as revision r246391. Thanks for the quick review. Dominique > Le 22 mars 2017 à 17:08, Thomas Koenig a écrit : > > Hi Dominique, > >> Th attached patch fixes some of the diagnostic issues reported by Roland >> Illig. Ok for trunk? > > Yes, OK. Thanks for

[PATCH gfortran] Fix PRs 79602, 79844, 79853, 79859, and 80011.

Th attached patch fixes some of the diagnostic issues reported by Roland Illig. Ok for trunk? 2017-03-22 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/79602 * decl.c: Replace '%s' with %qs. * expr.c: Likewise. * interface.c: Likewise. * match.c:

[Patch, fortran] PRs 79597 and 79601.

Dear All, These trivial bugs have been fixed in revision 245729. 2017-02-25 Dominique d'Humieres PR fortran/79597 * interface.c (gfc_match_end_interface): Remove spurious comma and space, replace 'got %s' with 'got %qs'. 2017-02-25 Dominique

Re: PR79286, ira combine_and_move_insns in loops

> Le 22 févr. 2017 à 17:06, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> a écrit : > > On 02/22/2017 04:32 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> >>> Le 21 févr. 2017 à 23:48, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:39:08PM

Re: PR79286, ira combine_and_move_insns in loops

> Le 21 févr. 2017 à 23:48, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:39:08PM +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >>> I'm slightly concerned about the test and how it'll behave on targets with >>> small address spaces. If it's a pr

Re: PR79286, ira combine_and_move_insns in loops

> I'm slightly concerned about the test and how it'll behave on targets with > small address spaces. If it's a problem we can fault in adjustments. The test fails on x86_64-apple-darwin16 with -m32 and -O1 and above. TIA Dominique

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

For the record the test XPASS on darwin16 since at least r244095, but not on darwin10: XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++14 execution test XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test XPASS:

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

> This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. > … Commit r245098 caused New failures: FAIL: libgomp.c/atomic-2.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: libgomp.c/atomic-4.c (test for excess errors) FAIL:

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534 Change character length from int to size_t

> The following patch fixes these issues for me, does it work for you? Yes, it does! Dominique > Janne Blomqvist

[committed PATCH] PR79026 The tests changed by revision r244006 now fail on darwin

I have committed on the trunk as revision r244244 (pre approved by Uros Bizjak in bugzilla) the following patch --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr78904-2.c 2017-01-09 23:14:04.0 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr78904-2.c 2017-01-09 22:41:49.0 +0100 @@

Re: [Patch] PR71017 - libgcc/config/i386/cpuinfo.c:346:17: runtime error: left shift of 1 by 31 places cannot be represented in type 'int'

> Le 9 janv. 2017 à 20:37, Uros Bizjak a écrit : > > Hello! > >> The following patch fixes errors of the kind >> >> libgcc/config/i386/cpuinfo.c:260:17: runtime error: left shift of 1 by 31 >> places cannot be >> represented in type ‘int' >> >> 2017-01-07 Dominique

Re: [PATCH, i386]: Fix PR 78967, inserts are not effective

> The patch also tightens scan-assembler patterns in a couple of pr78904 > testcases. This caused https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79026. TIA Dominique

Re: [PATCH] PR 78534 Change character length from int to size_t

> r244027 reverts r244011. Sorry for the breakage. It seems to affect > all i686 as well in addition to power, maybe all 32-bit hosts. For the record, I see the following failures with an instrumented r244026 (as in pr78672) FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_length_20.f90 -O* execution test FAIL:

<    1   2   3   4   5   >