Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
In comment #7 of PR0, Richard Guenther asked the following question
I cannot answer:
Btw, is it mandated by the fortran standard to pass a scalar as array
reference?
Does anyone knows the answer? or should it be asked on comp.lang.fortran?
Here, it looks
On 9/7/07, Tim Prince [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
In comment #7 of PR0, Richard Guenther asked the following question
I cannot answer:
Btw, is it mandated by the fortran standard to pass a scalar as array
reference?
Does anyone knows the answer? or should
Salut Dominique, moin Richard, hello all,
(Answering Richard's question from PR0.)
Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Btw, is it mandated by the fortran standard to pass a scalar as array
reference?
Does anyone knows the answer? or should it be asked on comp.lang.fortran?
The standard
Does anyone knows the answer? or should it be asked on comp.lang.fortran?
It's very specific to the problem at hand, so I doubt c.l.f could give
us much input on that. As I understand, in this case, it actually is
the right thing to do.
FX
In comment #7 of PR0, Richard Guenther asked the following question
I cannot answer:
Btw, is it mandated by the fortran standard to pass a scalar as array
reference?
Does anyone knows the answer? or should it be asked on comp.lang.fortran?
TIA
Dominique
This is now PR0 handled by Richard Guenther.
Dominique
Sadly, the testsuite regressions don't seems to be fixed. I will try to
figure out tomorrow why the function is still being inlined.
The test case gfortran.dg/do_3.F90 pass with -fno-strict-overflow
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-09/msg00116.html).
I have posted at
Sadly, the testsuite regressions don't seems to be fixed. I will try to
figure out tomorrow why the function is still being inlined.
The test case gfortran.dg/do_3.F90 pass with -fno-strict-overflow
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-09/msg00116.html).
I have posted at
The testcase was indeed previously not inlined at all. Shall we add
-fno-strict-overflow to the testcase then?
This what I would do, but I am not qualified to make the call.
In addition my working setup is totally broken right now
(at stage1). Could you do the addition to the testcase
and run
I have done some investigation about the recent failure of
gfortran.dg/c_char_tests.f03. First the failure disappears
with -fno-inline or -fno-inline-functions:
[karma] f90/bug% gfc c_char_tests_db.f03 -O3 -fno-inline c_char_driver_db.c
[karma] f90/bug% a.out
[karma] f90/bug% gfc
The testcase was indeed previously not inlined at all. Shall we add
-fno-strict-overflow to the testcase then?
This what I would do, but I am not qualified to make the call.
In addition my working setup is totally broken right now
(at stage1). Could you do the addition to the testcase
Because of the famous duplicated declaration problem
This sentence is reminding me that I forgot to send the following update:
As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
and my current patch is
Because of the famous duplicated declaration problem
This sentence is reminding me that I forgot to send the following update:
As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
and my current patch is
As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
and my current patch is triggering a very long string of
Huh, still I would be interested in seeing the patch.
It's based on Michal Matz's patch at
As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
and my current patch is triggering a very long string of
Huh, still I would be interested in seeing the patch.
It's based on Michal Matz's patch at
Jan Hubicka wrote:
Thanks, I sent the patch for testing and lets see if it solves the
problem.
If the testsuite passes, and you intend to commit this, please add a FIXME.
Cheers,
- Tobi
Honza
Index: trans-decl.c
===
---
Jan Hubicka wrote:
Thanks, I sent the patch for testing and lets see if it solves the
problem.
If the testsuite passes, and you intend to commit this, please add a FIXME.
Sadly, the testsuite regressions don't seems to be fixed. I will try to
figure out tomorrow why the function is still
Someone has committed a patch that is causing both
gfortran.dg/do_3.F90 and gfortran.dg/c_char_tests.f03
to fail at -O3 on amd64-*-freebsd. A quick inspection
of fortran/ChangeLog doesn't yield a pointer to any
particular commit. This may be caused by some middle-end
change, but I won't have
Someone has committed a patch that is causing both
gfortran.dg/do_3.F90 and gfortran.dg/c_char_tests.f03
to fail at -O3 on amd64-*-freebsd. A quick inspection
of fortran/ChangeLog doesn't yield a pointer to any
particular commit. This may be caused by some middle-end
change, but I won't
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:48:08PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
My fortran-fu is however not at level to figure out what precisely is
going wrong in those two testcases.
I'll try to reduce the do_3.F90 code to a minimum testcase. Unfortunately,
my middle/back-end knowledge is probably much
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:37:15PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:48:08PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
My fortran-fu is however not at level to figure out what precisely is
going wrong in those two testcases.
I'll try to reduce the do_3.F90 code to a minimum
21 matches
Mail list logo
