http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-26 18:19:40
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 26 18:19:36 2011
New Revision: 174302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174302
Log:
2011-05-26 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-26 20:49:11
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 26 20:49:07 2011
New Revision: 174308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174308
Log:
2011-05-26 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-05-24 09:43:32 UTC ---
Dear Thomas,
With your patch, what is the difference between GFC_CAN_REVERSE
and GFC_REVERSE_NOT_SET?
Perhaps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-23
20:01:10 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
just two questions, for my understanding:
With your patch, what is the difference between GFC_CAN_REVERSE
and GFC_REVERSE_NOT_SET?
And why do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-22 18:28:18
UTC ---
Created attachment 24332
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24332
A fix for the PR
This uses the same basic idea as Thomas' patch but is based
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-21
15:12:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 24320
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24320
Tentative patch
Paul,
what do you think of this approach? It fixes the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-16
07:27:07 UTC ---
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-05/msg00090.html
It fixes the test case of comment 0, but (cf. review comment) it does not
handle a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2011-05-16 12:48:32 UTC ---
Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
Structurally the patch is OK.
Cheers
Paul
On Mon, May 16,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-05-16 18:10:03 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
Structurally the patch is OK.
I think the logic could be as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-11
09:06:30 UTC ---
The obvious problem is that there is no temporary needed for either of the
variable expressions on the right hand side - only for their combination.
Thus,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-11
19:00:06 UTC ---
Hmm... I wonder if this does the trick? It fixes the test case,
and passes all regression tests... Paul, what do you think?
Index: dependency.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-11 19:57:21
UTC ---
Created attachment 24229
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24229
A fix for the PR
This fixes the problem in two steps:
(i) It reverts r162289;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.4, 4.4.0,
16 matches
Mail list logo
