Thank you very much for fixing those issues.
Note, __builtin_ia32_vpshufbitqmb{128,256,512}_mask are implemented
> incorrectly, can somebody from Intel handle that? The inlines in the
> intrinsic header look correct, but the builtins aren't and what's even worse
> is that the define_insns are wro
Hi Jerry,
OK for trunk?
OK. Thanks for the patch.
And: Merry Christmas to everybody!
Thomas
Dear Jerry,
The lines
+a=12.3456
and
+open(unit=10,sign='plus')
in gfortran.dg/integer_plus.f90 could probably be removed.
>From comment 2 in the PR (and the attached test), it seems that the reporter
>is expecting sign=‘plus’ to apply also to namelists, which is not the case
>with this pat
Hello,
we need the following follow-up fix for priority comparison in
sel_rank_for_schedule as demonstrated by PR 83513. Checked on
x86_64 by running a bootstrap and also checking for no regressions in
make -k check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fselective-scheduling/-fschedule-insns"
The attach patch fixes a problem when a LOGICAL subprogram
appears as the first element in an array constructor, which
is interpreted as a LOGICAL type-spec, which fails because
the argument is of type LOGICAL instead of INTEGER.
Regression tested on i686-*-freebsd and x86_64-*-freebsd.
OK to com
On 12/25/2017 05:10 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Dear Jerry,
>
> The lines
>
> +a=12.3456
>
> and
>
> +open(unit=10,sign='plus')
>
> in gfortran.dg/integer_plus.f90 could probably be removed.
>
Yes, left over from some other testing I was doing
> From comment 2 in the PR (and the attach
In the midst of the holiday season, the king and ruler of all elves, otherwise
known as The Elf, was told by little elves that users are complaining how
stlstl and libc++ make optional's copy and move operations conditionally
trivial, but libstdc++ doesn't. This made The Elf fairly angry, and he sp
On 25 December 2017 20:45:40 CET, Steve Kargl
wrote:
>The attach patch fixes a problem when a LOGICAL subprogram
>appears as the first element in an array constructor, which
>is interpreted as a LOGICAL type-spec, which fails because
>the argument is of type LOGICAL instead of INTEGER.
>
>Regress
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:12:49PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 25 December 2017 20:45:40 CET, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> >The attach patch fixes a problem when a LOGICAL subprogram
> >appears as the first element in an array constructor, which
> >is interpreted as a LOGICAL type-spec,
On 11/09/2017 11:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 06:57:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 06:51:34PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
Ok, so like this if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
Changes from the last patch:
1) false instead of lval for COMPOUND_EXPR an
10 matches
Mail list logo
