https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103854
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
||2021-07-27
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
> Solution: I think the proper fix is to remove both
> _gfortran_gfc_desc_to_cf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84119
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100110
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50628
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50628=edit
Fix for the PR
As I thought, the fix is trivial.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100110
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98534
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
This needs to be incorporated into the fix for PR100027. I hope that Jose takes
this PR over :-)
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98534
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pault at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100027
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99307
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
The patch was posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055923.html
I'll ping it.
Thanks Richard.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99818
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #4)
> > Have you ever tried to put a tent up in a storm?
> ... geez, how difficult and lengthy ...
>
> The number of bug reports is admittedly increasing,
> but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99818
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99818
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Started with r11-7188-gff6903288d96aa1d.
Thanks, Gerhard and Martin.
Have you ever tried to put a tent up in a storm? Sometimes maintaining gfortran
feels just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #33 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #32)
> Ready for merge?
Hi Juergen,
Daytime work intervened. I will submit to the list today.
Thanks for all your support BTW.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #30 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50442=edit
Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem.. so far :-)
Hi Juergen,
I think that this one does the job... it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #28 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #27)
> Created attachment 50432 [details]
> reproducer, down to 6800 lines
Hi Juergen,
Stop! Yesterday's final is just fine. The problem is connected with the logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> Actually, the last example missed a line that I overeagerly deleted too
> much. This one is the correct reproducer:
> module m
> implicit none
> private
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99545
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> I confirm that with that patch our code compiles again, however, more or
> less all functionality fails because of runtime errors about
> Fortran runtime error:
gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50386=edit
Fix for the PR
Juergen,
Thanks for the report and the reduction.
r11-6253-gce8dcc9105cbd404 exposed at er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99307
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99307
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> > Reduced test
>
> While -fsanitize=address,undefined does not find anything on
> x86_64-gnu-linux, I do see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99124
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99124
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Fixed on all three branches.
Thanks for the report. I hope that the constraint on class-valued elemental
functions doesn't spoil any code.
Cheers
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99138
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> Confirmed – with 'class(*), allocatable :: f(:)' it should be valid (with
> prior assignment).
>
> The problem is in gfc_match_rvalue:
>
> 3737 if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99112
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99060
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
ects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 50164
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50164=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98897
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38319
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> Related / same issue:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055654.html
Hi Tobias,
Over the weekend, I had a stab at fixing this recent issue. I
at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> > With r11-6917, I do not get any failures for the testcases in this PR.
> [...]
> > z2.f90 works with 9.3.1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> Created attachment 50057 [details]
> Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem
>
> The attached patch has a fragment of my finalize on assignment patch in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 50057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50057=edit
Patch that "fixes" all versions of the problem
The attached patch has a fragment of my finalize on assignment patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98472
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98517
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98565
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98573
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49952=edit
Slightly better patch
This gets rid of the regression in gfortran.dg/finalize_29.f08.
However, finalize_25.f90 exposes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to José Rui Faustino de Sousa from comment #7)
> Hi all!
>
> Still ICEs with 9/10/11 using -ftrapv -fcheck=bounds
>
> Best regards,
> José Rui
Yes, indeed. This with those compile options
module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 49891
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49891=edit
Provisio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49883
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49883=edit
Updated versionof the patch
I have rolled in Steve's use of gfc_reduce_init_expr and will submit within the
hour.
Best
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
--- Comment #27 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49875
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49875=edit
Fix for the cases in comments 23 and 24
Hi Damian,
Happy New Year! or I wish you a better one anyway.
I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 94246, which changed state.
Bug 94246 Summary: [9 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90
since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98498
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98498
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-02
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
It looks as if gfortran is standard defying;
J3/yy-nnn
To: J3 Members
From: Steve Lionel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> > Paul,
> >
> > are you still working on this?
>
> Paul,
>
> this is still one of yours...
Hi Harald,
Hah! I am probably a week or two from getting to it. I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|PRINT the array constructed |ICE in
|from implied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98458
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93993
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> > (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #4)
> > > The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm
> > > :
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96495
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96102
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93833
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #8)
> As noted by Tobias:
>
> Patch was submitted
> at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-March/054072.html
> but the new mailing had stripped off the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92976
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98408
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97612
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49793=edit
Fix for the PR
This regtests OK. Testcase:
! { dg-do run }
!
! Test the fix for PR98342.
!
! Contributed by Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98342
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
The example that you give shows that setting the undefined part to zero
certainly is not correct. I updated my tree for the commit and am only just now
rebuilding. It'll be tomorrow before I put this right.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #3)
>
> > function kn1() result(hm2)
> > complex :: hm(1:2), hm2(1:2)
> > data (hm(md)%re, md=1,2)/1.0, 2.0/
> > hm2 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Please see PR97694 for a patch that fixes both PRs at once.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97694
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97694
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2)
>
> The fix regtests OK. I will commit as 'obvious' with a test case in the next
> day or two.
Cancel that, there is one regression.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35718
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pault at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Blast! Finger slipped
The fix regtests OK. I will commit as 'obvious' with a test case in the next
day
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97723
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49722
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49722=edit
Tentative patch for the PR
The attached regtests OK and the following runs correctly:
module ur
contains
function
||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed with valgrind. At least as old as 4.9.0.
Hi,
>From a quick perusal of the standard, I find in F2003 16.4.2.1:
"Unless a pointer is initialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98016
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98016
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Ev Drikos from comment #7)
> Created attachment 49659 [details]
> attachment for pr98016-07
>
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 49645 [details]
> > Fix for the PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98016
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96886
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #37 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #36)
> Created attachment 49412 [details]
> An updated patch
>
> The patch has been evolving... slowly.
>
> I found that dependency_57.f90 segfaulted in runtime so I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118
--- Comment #36 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49412=edit
An updated patch
The patch has been evolving... slowly.
I found that dependency_57.f90 segfaulted in runtime so I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47469
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Tobias's original suggestion is certainly more concise, although equivalent to
the present code.
I will commit the change today or tomorrow as obvious. It happens that I am
working on trans-expr.c at the
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-05
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
Manifestly confirmed :-)
Paul
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The fix for PR97045 flags up the need for rationalization of building array
references in trans-array.c and trans.c.
The patch works but the result has made this area
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97045
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 49272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49272=edit
Updated patch
It turned out that with the original patch, character payloads of the unlimited
polymorphic array were
401 - 500 of 2184 matches
Mail list logo
