[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-31 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-20 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 17:01 --- The testcase isn't needed and should not be committed. As explained elsewhere, the problem was caused by merging one line from a 4.1 patch into 4.0 that should not have been committed. Jerry has fixed that problem.

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-20 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #21 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-20 14:44 --- Steven, see comment #1. I was talking about the testcase. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:48 --- HJ, see comment #18. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #19 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-20 06:22 --- Shouldn't that case also be added to 4.1 and mainline to prevent this bug from happening there? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:19 --- Fixed 4.0 only. Not a bug in 4.1 or 4.2 -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:12 --- Subject: Bug 25305 Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Dec 20 06:12:53 2005 New Revision: 108845 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108845 Log: 2005-12-20 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:06 --- Subject: Bug 25305 Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Dec 20 06:06:28 2005 New Revision: 108844 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108844 Log: 2005-12-20 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:06 --- Evidently I do not have authorization to commit to the 4.0 branch. (I tried twice) Here is a completed and ready testcase. I strongly suggest people move on to 4.1 if at all possible. If someone else wants to

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 00:50 --- My apologies, I was looking at the wrong place. Grigory, thanks for test case. I have regression tested the patch and see no new failures. There are some NIST failures, but these are not affected by the patch.

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread grigory_zagorodnev at linux dot intel dot com
--- Comment #13 from grigory_zagorodnev at linux dot intel dot com 2005-12-19 14:41 --- Here is the small reproducer, extracted from cpu2000/191.fma3d, so you can update regression test base. CHARACTER RD*8 CHARACTER WR*8 CHARACTER(1) C1 RD='N 1' READ

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-19 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #12 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-19 14:40 --- Can you tell me which check in fixes this bug for 4.0? -- hjl at lucon dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-18 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 07:25 --- Fixed in 4.0, not a bug in 4.1 and 4.2 -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-12 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-12 15:04 --- A patch is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00594.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-08 Thread jvdelisle at verizon dot net
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2005-12-08 09:01 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K hjl at lucon dot org wrote: > --- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 06:55 --- > I have verified that > > http://gcc.gnu.o

Re: [Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-08 Thread Jerry DeLisle
hjl at lucon dot org wrote: --- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 06:55 --- I have verified that http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00874.html is the cause. Since gcc 4.1 and 4.2 are OK, the problem may be in the backport. OK, I see now this is not a problem

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-07 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 07:32 --- Revert @@ -293,7 +292,7 @@ write_block (int length) { char *dest; - if (!is_internal_unit() && current_unit->bytes_left < length) + if (current_unit->bytes_left < length) { generate_error (ERROR_EOR, NULL);

[Bug libfortran/25305] [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K

2005-12-07 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 06:55 --- I have verified that http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00874.html is the cause. Since gcc 4.1 and 4.2 are OK, the problem may be in the backport. -- hjl at lucon dot org changed: What|Removed