From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4373F395A452; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:18:41 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4373F395A452 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1591971521; bh=vviNyhufGkQ6wqpHS5GXNBclPoGL3kkaJSGJ5MZIYWw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VYuqF7rnpoSAFSHey28yBIqJa8E805pGFsxd9NnRHc4MzivJ8GtjOgbnl0OXDpYQp H3uZJ2TGpf//Muf8UzB0CQ0UKTMqhQ2NVdVEPRp4F5O62pDpitdDwmdIs297TrDaZ8 GNhFuXnQ20Em98M+dM4R1RmVfNwXPMNgny0yu5Do= From: "tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/95654] nvptx offloading: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/pr66199-5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:18:41 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openmp X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:18:41 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95654 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge --- Tobias, I see you've unassigned yourself here, and set Depends on: PR95109.= =20 Have you verified that it's the same underlying issue, or do you just want = to wait for PR95109 being resolved before analyzing this one here, as it might= be the same underlying issue? And, if you're not going to work on these items now, is there any time scale?=