Hi Jeff, hi Thomas, hi all,
I had a look at Wannier90. (Fedora uses Version 2.0.0 of 2013, 2.0.1 was
released 2015; current is 3.0 of Feb 2019 and does build.) I think that
problem in Wannier90 it typical for all failing code, although there are
likely a few other failures. Namely,
That code
Hi Steve,
On 10/25/19 4:17 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
My BOZ patch brought gfortran closer to an actual comforming Fortran
compiler while providing an option that would allow quite a few
documented and undocumented extensions. If the patch broke some of
your code, and -fallow-invalid-boz did not a
On 10/25/19 7:54 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On 10/25/19 3:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> So across Fedora the BOZ stuff tripped 2-3 packages. In comparison the
>> function argument stuff broke 30-40 packages, many of which still
>> don't build without -fallow-argument-mismatch.
>
> Regard
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:35:24AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 9/26/19 10:45 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>
> PS: I was also not that happy about the BOZ changes by Steve, which
> broke code here – but, fortunately, adding int( ,kind=) around it was
> sufficient and that code was supposed to b
Hi Jeff,
On 10/25/19 3:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So across Fedora the BOZ stuff tripped 2-3 packages. In comparison the
function argument stuff broke 30-40 packages, many of which still
don't build without -fallow-argument-mismatch.
Regarding the latter:
The initial patch was too strict – an als
On 10/25/19 2:35 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 9/26/19 10:45 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>> Original thread starts here
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
>> OK to commit?
>
> As Steve, I am not really happy about adding yet another option and
> especially not about legacy f
On 9/26/19 10:45 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
Original thread starts here
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
OK to commit?
As Steve, I am not really happy about adding yet another option and
especially not about legacy features. On the other hand, I see that
legacy code is
PING - OK to commit?
On 02/10/2019 09:00, Mark Eggleston wrote:
On 28/09/2019 17:50, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:45:28AM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
Original thread starts here
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
OK to commit?
I'm not a big fan of op
On 28/09/2019 17:50, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:45:28AM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
Original thread starts here
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
OK to commit?
I'm not a big fan of option proliferation. If you don't
want to see warns just use -w.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:45:28AM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> Original thread starts here
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
>
> OK to commit?
>
I'm not a big fan of option proliferation. If you don't
want to see warns just use -w. Of course, this is just
MHO.
--
Original thread starts here
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
OK to commit?
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
Mark Eggleston
* invoke.texi: Add -Wno-overwrite-recursive to list of options. Add
description of -Wno-overwrite-recursive. Fix typo in description
of -Wi
11 matches
Mail list logo
