http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2013-03-20
11:39:31 UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Mar 20 11:34:56 2013
New Revision: 196821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=196821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't XFAIL gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 (PR fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka 2013-03-18 11:04:58
UTC ---
> Since very recently (between 20130313 and 20130315) gfortran.dg/do_1.f90
> execution started to XPASS not only at -O0/-O1, but at every optimisation
> level.
> I think it woul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-02-12 18:21:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Please also split the testcase - it contains
> several tests and only one has invalid overflow.
Actually there are three of them
(a)
p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2013-02-04 00:16:44
UTC ---
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
>
> --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > > > Thus,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> > > Thus, I close the bug as INVALID.
> > ... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and
> > remove
> > the XFAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-11-18 14:33:49 UTC ---
> ... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and remove
> the XFAIL I introduced?
I cannot commit anything, but the XFAIL can be fixed in seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-10-23 13:55:24 UTC
---
> Thus, I close the bug as INVALID.
... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and remove
the XFAIL I introduced?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl
2012-10-17 19:21:22 UTC ---
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:51:08PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > The Standard does not define 'incremented' and
> > 'incrementation', and in particular, these wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-10-17
18:51:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> but you'll see that at least one person disagrees with both
> former J3 members.
The only way to get a definite answer is to fill an interpretation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-10-17
10:41:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> "7.1.5.2.4 Evaluation of numeric intrinsic operations"
> "The execution of any numeric operation whose result is not defined by the
> arithmetic used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2012-10-17
09:22:41 UTC ---
"7.1.5.2.4 Evaluation of numeric intrinsic operations"
"The execution of any numeric operation whose result is not defined by the
arithmetic used by the processor is prohibited
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener 2012-10-15
11:49:08 UTC ---
If Fortran requires i to be HUGE(i) + 1 after the loop body then what does
it say about the overflow?
That is, what would be valid at the end of this loop?
if (i .ne. HU
17 matches
Mail list logo
