--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 06:39
---
I am reopening this bug. I stumbled upon it searching testcases from Manfred,
Running the test case here with 4.5 has not substantially improved. Time to
put on my thinking cap.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 06:17
---
Created an attachment (id=19856)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19856&action=view)
Prelinary patch to fix this
The attached patch is preliminary. It borrows the existing gfc_trans_
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 05:07
---
Might as well confirm this one.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 03:34
---
Subject: Bug 42999
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Feb 10 03:34:33 2010
New Revision: 156643
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156643
Log:
2010-02-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 03:31
---
Subject: Bug 42999
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Feb 10 03:31:02 2010
New Revision: 156642
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156642
Log:
2010-02-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 03:41
---
I was being a bit too aggressive. The following patch fixes it. The problem
does not exist on fortran-exp. I removed my original patch from the branch
since handling of constructors is being revamped completely
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-07 13:37
---
Closing, not needed on 4.4
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-07 08:00
---
Fixed on trunk. Will back port to 4.4 in a few days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42742
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-07 07:50
---
Subject: Bug 42742
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Feb 7 07:50:17 2010
New Revision: 156569
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156569
Log:
2010-02-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-07 07:46
---
Subject: Bug 42742
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Feb 7 07:45:55 2010
New Revision: 156568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156568
Log:
2010-02-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-07 00:08
---
I have found some time and managed to isolate the problem. It is in the
allocation of new format nodes after the fnode_array is exhausted. During
format caching, reset_fnode relies on a NULL to break out of a
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 20:06
---
Fixed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 05:00
---
Subject: Bug 42901
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 5 05:00:15 2010
New Revision: 156510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156510
Log:
2010-02-04 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 04:58
---
Subject: Bug 42901
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 5 04:58:30 2010
New Revision: 156509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156509
Log:
2010-02-04 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 04:51
---
Subject: Bug 42901
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 5 04:50:53 2010
New Revision: 156508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156508
Log:
2010-02-04 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 04:47
---
Subject: Bug 42901
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 5 04:47:12 2010
New Revision: 156507
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156507
Log:
2010-02-04 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 03:25
---
1 year has gone by again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22210
--- Comment #26 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 03:13
---
I think this is fixed and looks like it has dried up.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 03:04
---
Closing. Not a gcc/gfortran bug.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 01:53
---
Subject: Bug 42901
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 4 01:53:37 2010
New Revision: 156488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156488
Log:
2010-02-03 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 01:50
---
Subject: Bug 42901
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 4 01:49:41 2010
New Revision: 156487
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156487
Log:
2010-02-03 Jerry DeLisle
PR li
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 01:12
---
Any further word on this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40070
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-04 01:08
---
No further replies, closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-03 04:20
---
Patch submitted for approval:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-02/msg00017.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42901
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 22:27
---
I will have a look at this one.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-28 04:27
---
Confirming.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-28 04:15
---
The breakage is from rev 152345 which looks like a merge from fortran-dev.
Continuing the hunt in fortran-dev gives ...---... ...---... ...---...
r152375 Fails
r152345 Fails < - Regression occurs here
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-28 02:39
---
I have a regression hunt started
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42888
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-25 01:18
---
This appears to fix this: regression tested on x86-64
Index: array.c
===
--- array.c (revision 156201)
+++ array.c (working copy
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 14:09
---
Time constraints, un assigning.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 14:03
---
As Paul would say, I am flummoxed. In remove_subobject_ref at line expr.c:1159
e->ref = p->ref->next; p->ref is NULL, resulting in the segfault. I have
been unable to conjure a solution.
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 13:43
---
Closing as fixed. See related PR42353
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 04:30
---
Un-assigning. My approach to resolve this by avoiding the error message based
on the vaiable name did not work. I also am getting short on time again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42353
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 04:26
---
Fixed for now, changing summary to reflect the current situation. I want to
leave open until I have time to investigate further.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 02:37
---
Janus, reassigning to myself. I think I see a problem in the error checking
logic and I have a tentative patch that has regression tested fine. I want to
think a bit about whether I an fixing this correctly
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 00:25
---
Obviously we do not have the original test case added to the testsuite so we
can catch these things. I added gfcbug96d.f90 to the testsuite, thinking it
was the same issue as gfcbug96.f90. Lets just reopen this
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 03:06
---
Subject: Bug 42680
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jan 18 03:06:10 2010
New Revision: 156000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156000
Log:
2010-01-17 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 02:21
---
Subject: Bug 42680
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Jan 18 02:21:20 2010
New Revision: 155998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155998
Log:
2010-01-17 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 23:20
---
Same test case fails differently on dev then it did on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 15:58
---
SendingChangeLog
Sendingio/format.c
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 155939.
This will be back ported to 4.4.4 in a few days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42742
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 02:07
---
Fixed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 02:06
---
Subject: Bug 42684
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 15 02:06:23 2010
New Revision: 155931
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155931
Log:
2010-01-14 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 01:47
---
Subject: Bug 42684
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 15 01:47:43 2010
New Revision: 155930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155930
Log:
2010-01-14 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 19:30
---
By contrived I meant - made to look like your real code, but not necessarily
your real code. I want to make sure "contrived" is not inetrpreted here as
negative in any way.
At least conceptually
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 13:45
---
The test case in comment #8 is a separate issue. The constructor pointer is
coming out of find_component_ref as invalid. I am still working on it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41044
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 13:23
---
This is related to format caching and the length of the format string.
Something like this:
fmtstr="(i4,4(a1,i2.2),10(a1,a12))"
Is a work around until I fix this, unless of course the te
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 13:06
---
I will take this one.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 05:33
---
s/mps/mpc/ I will install libmpc differently and see what happens.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42727
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 05:31
---
Created an attachment (id=19595)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19595&action=view)
libgcc config.log
I see the error /home/jerry/gcc/objdir/./gcc/cc1: error while loading shared
li
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 03:07
---
Patch submitted for approval.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 03:04
---
Fixed on trunk. New constructor code on fortran-exp will probably take a whole
new approach on this.
Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 03:02
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 03:01
---
With g++ installed, build stops with same error.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42727
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 14:32
---
g++ was not installed. I have now installed it and will try again and report
back here tonight. Thanks
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42727
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 13:57
---
Created an attachment (id=19572)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19572&action=view)
config.log
I don't see anything obvious.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42727
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: i686-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42727
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 04:24
---
*** Bug 42680 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 04:24
---
This is a duplicate and the patch in 42684 fixes it.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42684 ***
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 04:23
---
Regression testing with the following patch passes. I used p->sym->name
instead of q->sym->name in place of NULL, but I do not think it matters.
Index:
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 03:13
---
The problem is here. Wrong argument passed to gfc_compare_interfaces.
It can't be NULL. I am testing this patch.
Index: interf
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-11 02:58
---
This patch, reverting only the change to interface.c, appears to fix the
problem. No other regressions in testsuite.
Index: interface.c
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-11 02:54
---
This patch appears to avoid the problem. I have not looked farther up the call
chain yet to see where passing the NULL in name2 should be avoided completely
for the test case.
Index: interface.c
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 23:11
---
Regressions on fortran-dev branch fixed. Committed revision 155778.
Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 19:01
---
Subject: Bug 20923
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 9 19:01:41 2010
New Revision: 155773
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155773
Log:
2010-01-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 19:01
---
Subject: Bug 32489
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 9 19:01:41 2010
New Revision: 155773
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155773
Log:
2010-01-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 18:31
---
Subject: Bug 32489
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 9 18:31:00 2010
New Revision: 155772
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155772
Log:
2010-01-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 17:47
---
Subject: Bug 20923
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 9 17:47:04 2010
New Revision: 155769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155769
Log:
2010-01-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 17:47
---
Subject: Bug 32489
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 9 17:47:04 2010
New Revision: 155769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155769
Log:
2010-01-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 03:01
---
I have read through the links given by Dave. My take is that we have some
implementation dependent, non portable, behaviour in linkers. Now that we know
we have this inconsistency, the question is do we want
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 03:52
---
Fixed the script on Cygwin:
$ ./bug1.sh
ar: creating libex.a
COMPILER gfortran-4
BAD LOAD ix2(4)=
ar: creating libex.a
COMPILER gfc
BAD LOAD ix2(4)=
ar: creating libex.a
COMPILER g77
GOOD LOAD ix2(4
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 03:40
---
With Linux:
$ ./bug1.sh
ar: creating libex.a
COMPILER g77
GOOD LOAD ix2(4)=abcdefghijklmnopqrst
ar: creating libex.a
COMPILER g95
GOOD LOAD ix2(4)=abcdefghijklmnopqrst
ar: creating libex.a
COMPILER gfortran
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 03:25
---
OK, I could not get the script to run for some reason.
However, I manually performed the steps in the script:
gfortran-4 -c juinit2.f
ar -r libex.a juinit2.o
gfortran-4 bug.f -L. -lex -o bug
./bug
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-01 06:35
---
I forgot to mention I am using Cygwin 1.7, so this is beginning to look like
some sort of installation issue. The gfortran version 4.5 I downloaded and
installed per the gfortran wiki.
The other possibility to
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-01 06:22
---
I tried the test case with Cygwin running on WinNT-4.0 and it works fine with
both 4.3.4 and 4.5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 02:37
---
Closing as invalid. See the STOP statement at the end of the writeit
subroutine. Gads!
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 02:03
---
Confirmed, this is very interesting.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-29 02:44
---
I confirmed that there is no problem with gfortran 4.5 on Cygwin. A binary is
available on the wiki.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries
Let me know if you have any difficulties with this
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-29 02:27
---
Thank you for the report. I will investigate and see what I can do.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42527
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-20 20:57
---
Thomas, let me know if you want me to do the test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42422
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 15:38
---
I agree, closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-15 03:02
---
I have started looking at this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41872
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-10 20:11
---
Tobias, thanks for posting the link to the patch. I want to make sure we can
build cp2k with this and if anyone has any other large apps, I want to make
sure we don;t regress. Maybe weather modeling and such
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 20:32
---
This really is not a duplicate of PR20923. In fact the gfortran frontend makes
it through the fft257.f90 test case in a few seconds. The memory hogging and
cycling is happening in middle-end.
With a simple
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 14:00
---
I agree with everyone. ;) Let's not split hairs. Dominique's idea is good.
Let's go to that (comment #14) for now and leave the rest as enhancement. This
would be a great project for a new vol
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 01:35
---
I found the thread on this:
http://www.rhinocerus.net/forum/lang-fortran/585916-printing-64-bit-binary-number-gfortran-4-1-2-a.html
Richard Maine says:
" from the thread
> program test_acos
>
>
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 15:40
---
More descriptive summary. Low priority.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 15:00
---
using Q(0) puts the 999 in the first position. We have an off by one error
here.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 01:02
---
OK we have a Heisenbug going on here.
Running from Valgrind like this:
valgrind --leak-check=full f951 -pedantic ' as free form
.file ""
:2.51:
PARAMETER ( MY_STRING4 = (
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 00:16
---
I can not reproduce at all. Can you try an update. Maybe one our patches
recently fixed this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36534
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 17:01
---
Try this patch:
Index: data.c
===
--- data.c (revision 155006)
+++ data.c (working copy)
@@ -497,7 +497,13
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 06:56
---
It looks like this is fixed. I could not reproduce the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36534
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 06:36
---
No comments for a while, closing as won't fix.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 06:29
---
This is a glibc issue with software sin function. It does not use the FPU.
Just try with -m32. Changing n=5
$ gfc -m64 untitled.f90
$ time ./a.out
-1781878.9
real0m3.060s
user0m3.050s
sys
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 06:17
---
Works on 4.4 and current trunk,
closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 06:04
---
According to a note I spotted on clf , reading and writing reals with BOZ is
invalid, so what we are doing here is an extension. I am tempted to just close
this one and do no more.
Any opinions?
--
http
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 04:17
---
Studying this with a little instrumentation, I see that gfc_expand_constructor
is called only once with some of the test cases for pr20923. This is good.
Also, in the test case for pr41807, the work function
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 04:07
---
I plan to keep poking at this and other general constructor issues.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 04:41
---
Fixed on Trunk and 4.4
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 04:40
---
Subject: Bug 41278
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Dec 1 04:40:14 2009
New Revision: 154864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154864
Log:
2009-11-30 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortr
301 - 400 of 3058 matches
Mail list logo
