Janne Blomqvist writes:
> PR libfortran/64770
> * gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90: New test.
At line 9 of file
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20150125/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90 (unit =
99)
Fortran runtime error: File 'pr64770test.dat' already exists
F
> ... FAIL: gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90 -O0 execution test
This is fixed with something such as
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90 2015-01-25
00:37:43.0 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90 2015-01-25 10:31:40.0
+0100
@@ -1,4 +1
On 24-01-15 20:41, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Friday 2014-11-21 10:07, Alex Velenko wrote:
Can someone, please, approve?
we tried to document this in https://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html .
Can you perhaps suggest a way for us to improve this to make
it more clear or easier to find?
Ho
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35:50AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > ... FAIL: gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90 -O0 execution test
>
> This is fixed with something such as
>
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90 2015-01-25
> 00:37:43.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsu
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Jeff Law writes:
> > On 01/15/15 03:13, Robert Suchanek wrote:
> >>> Robert, can you look at reload.c::reload_inner_reg_of_subreg and
> >>> verify that the comment just before its return statement is
> >>> effectively the situation you're in.
> >>>
> >>> There are cert
This backports the fixes for PR middle-end/57748, a wrong-code and ICE
regression, to the 4.8 branch.
Tested extensively on x86_64, powerpc64, sparc64, ARMv{5,7}, and m68k.
Ok for 4.8?
(I don't have commit rights.)
/Mikael
gcc/
2015-01-25 Mikael Pettersson
Backport from mainline
Hello,
I have had a look at PR62044 where the compiler ICEs when loading the
extensions of a derived type from a module file, because one use-renamed
extended type is not found under its original name.
After scratching my head on the tree of extended types (rooted at
derived->f2k_derived->sym_roo
Mikael Morin wrote:
I have had a look at PR62044 where the compiler ICEs when loading the
extensions of a derived type from a module file, because one use-renamed
extended type is not found under its original name.
After scratching my head on the tree of extended types (rooted at
derived->f2k_de
Hi,
This adds some more addc/subc tests which are now working after the
treg_set_expr patch.
Tested with make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="sh.exp=pr54236*
--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,-m4a/-ml,-m4a/-mb}"
Committed as r220093.
Cheers,
Oleg
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> On Saturday 24 January 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> > Hello!
>> >
>> >>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:28:47PM +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>> >>> > I recently wanted to use
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> wrote:
>> On Saturday 24 January 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> > Hello!
>>> >
>>> >>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:28:47PM +0100, A
On Sunday 2015-01-25 20:04, Leonid Yuriev wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline
>
> s/GCC 5 Stage 4 (starts 2014-01-17)/GCC 5 Stage 4 (starts 2015-01-17)/
Thanks for reporting this, Leonid.
I just applied the obvious patch below.
Gerald
Index: develop.html
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 2015-01-04 20:20:40 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner
wrote:
> (CC'ing build machinery maintainers, maybe I should have done this initially)
Good point, that's my oversight and I'm quite undecided what to do.
> Am 2014-12-31 um 11:45 schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
> > On Fri, Dec 19,
On Friday 2015-01-23 04:50, Chen Gang S wrote:
> And I want to consult: for passing assignment working flow, must I
> make a patch which contents much code lines? (At present, my patches
> are all trivial patch).
No, the assignment process does not have any requirements on
past or current patche
On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:00:12PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 11/27/2014 08:57 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> -/* { dg-error "is not a constant expression" "" { target c++ } 12 } */
>>> +/* { dg-error "" "" { xfail { *-*-* } } 11 } */
>>
>>
On Jan 25, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 24-01-15 20:41, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On Friday 2014-11-21 10:07, Alex Velenko wrote:
>>> Can someone, please, approve?
>>
>> we tried to document this in https://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html .
>>
>> Can you perhaps suggest a
On 23 January 2015 at 14:44, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 23 January 2015 at 12:42, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> On 23 January 2015 at 11:18, Tejas Belagod wrote:
>>> On 22/01/15 21:31, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 22 January 2015 at 16:22, Tejas Belagod wrote:
>
> On 22/01/15 14:
On 17 December 2014 at 18:02, Tejas Belagod wrote:
> On 17/12/14 16:46, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>>
>> On 17 December 2014 at 15:15, Tejas Belagod wrote:
>>
It isn;t clear to me how far through the various BE patches we need to
get before 59810 is actually resolved?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David
On 1/26/15 03:50, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Friday 2015-01-23 04:50, Chen Gang S wrote:
>> And I want to consult: for passing assignment working flow, must I
>> make a patch which contents much code lines? (At present, my patches
>> are all trivial patch).
>
> No, the assignment process does no
Hi Ed,
On Friday 2015-01-02 13:59, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>>> I would like peoples opinion of adding another column to the tables
>>> indicating C++ feature status for C++11 and C++14 that contains the
>>> relevant SD-6 feature macro.
>> Sure, that makes sense.
> I seem unable to commit to wwwdoc
Kai-Uwe,
according to gcc/MAINTAINERS Jason and Krister are NetBSD
maintainers for GCC and can approve patches like yours, so
let me copy them.
(Should this be applied now, at least the copyright years
need to be adjusted to include 2015.)
Gerald
On Wednesday 2014-12-17 23:10, Kai-Uwe Eckhardt
On Wednesday 2015-01-21 14:17, Richard Biener wrote:
> Just read it and thought the following may apply.
This is a minor follow up. It makes a link relative and removes
a direct reference to Bugzilla.
Applied.
Gerald
Index: criteria.html
On Wednesday 2015-01-07 19:20, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
The documented syntax for most GCC options that take magic keywords is of the
form @option{-ffoo=@var{magic}}, with the various literal values for
@var{magic} listed in the option description. There are a number, though,
that list the keywor
On Monday 2014-12-01 20:44, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
> Testresults for 4.8.3
> hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
> x86_64-apple-darwin14.0.0
Applied, thank you.
Gerald
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35:50AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> > ... FAIL: gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90 -O0 execution test
>>
>> This is fixed with something such as
>>
>> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/open_new_segv.f90
This fixes grammar and avoids "alignment value" without "an" or "the".
Applied.
Gerald
Index: gcc-5/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-5/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.70
diff -u -r1.70 changes.html
--- gcc
On Saturday 2015-01-03 17:59, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> * most places in the manual use "null" or more rarely "@code{NULL}"
> rather than "NULL"
So, should this be documented in gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html?
Joseph?
Gerald
On Monday 2015-01-05 19:37, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
(I'm actually surprised that anybody even bothered to look at the patch
If the doc maintainers would prefer me to post these kinds of copy-editing
changes for review rather than just commit them, please let me know.)
I am fine, in fact hap
On Tuesday 2015-01-20 16:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Here's the wwwdocs patch for gcc-5/changes.html
I applied this little follow-up which ends lists with a full stop
instead of using a semi-colon.
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
R
Hi Honza,
thanks for putting this together. Please find some notes below.
Can you please take these plus the other bits of feedback you got
and post an updated patch for a quick final check?
On Wednesday 2015-01-21 22:58, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Index: changes.html
> ===
Hi,
A not uncommon idiom on Power for vector floating-point computation is
used to convert a double-precision value to single-precision and copy it
to all elements of a vector float. For this we see a specific convert
UNSPEC feeding an xxspltw pattern that copies from BE element zero.
Since all e
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 6:35 PM
> To: Tony Liu
> Cc: gcc-patches; Ramana Radhakrishnan; Richard Earnshaw
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM, testsuite] I
On 01/25/2015 05:04 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Hi Ed,
On Friday 2015-01-02 13:59, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I would like peoples opinion of adding another column to the tables
indicating C++ feature status for C++11 and C++14 that contains the
relevant SD-6 feature macro.
Sure, that makes sense.
> Hi Honza,
>
> thanks for putting this together. Please find some notes below.
> Can you please take these plus the other bits of feedback you got
> and post an updated patch for a quick final check?
Thanks, here is updated patch!
Index: changes.html
===
Hello,
> according to gcc/MAINTAINERS Jason and Krister are NetBSD
> maintainers for GCC and can approve patches like yours, so
> let me copy them.
>
> (Should this be applied now, at least the copyright years
> need to be adjusted to include 2015.)
Due to the latest changes in tree-core.h and
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 07:21:27PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> gfortran's scalar coarray are special: The descriptorless variant is a
> normal variable with some language-specific additional information (corank,
> bounds). The descriptor variant has a descriptor but the _data component is
> just
36 matches
Mail list logo
