Amker.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com writes:
Hi :
I found the temp register used for saving registers when expanding
prologue is defined by
macro MIPS_PROLOGUE_TEMP_REGNUM on mips target, like:
#define MIPS_PROLOGUE_TEMP_REGNUM \
(cfun-machine-interrupt_handler_p ? K0_REG_NUM :
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a reworked patch of Andrew Pinski Subscripting on vector
types in terms of GSoC 2010 [Artjoms Sinkarovs].
This patch allows to index individual elements of vector type in C.
For example: vec[i], where
It has been reported via the FSF that 'gfortran.info' is copyrighted by
the FSF '1999-2008', although it should be under the form '1999, 2000,
[other years], 2008'.
Indeed the GNU Coding Standards say the following:
Do not abbreviate the year list using a range; for instance, do not
write
On 5 June 2010 04:53, Philipp Thomas philipp.thom...@gmx.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:23:29 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
Great! Go ahead, please. The wiki is easy to edit.
Finally I got around to do it.
Editing is easy ... kind of :) Creating the Links was
[Now using the text suggested by David.]
Probably no one uses these old processors anymore, and support for them
is getting in the way of other work in the rs6000 port.
Let's remove it in 4.6. Okay?
Segher
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.5/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.90
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
[Now using the text suggested by David.]
Probably no one uses these old processors anymore, and support for
them is getting in the way of other work in the rs6000 port.
Well, if this is the text that David suggested, I say go ahead and commit.
Hello,
Several of us are trying to put together a PowerPCSPE Debian port
(powerpc-linux-gnuspe, based around the e500v2), and we're experiencing a
pretty bad FP register-save bug (PR44364 [0]). Specifically, it seems like GCC
will occasionally only save half of the 64-bit double register on
Hi,
I want to exclude all immediate or instruction. I did this by the following
define_insn
/--
(define_insn iorsi3
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 register_operand =d,d)
(ior:SI (match_operand:SI 1
yazdanbakhsh amir.yazdanbak...@gmail.com writes:
I want to exclude all immediate or instruction. I did this by the following
define_insn
/--
(define_insn iorsi3
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 register_operand =d,d)
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
+ error_at (loc, index value is out of bound);
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure - we can simply emit a warning here if you prefer.
Only with -Warray-bounds enabled like the rest of the C/C++ front-ends do :).
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Artem Shinkarov
artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a reworked patch of Andrew Pinski Subscripting on vector
types in terms of GSoC 2010 [Artjoms Sinkarovs].
This patch allows to index individual elements of vector type in C.
For example: vec[i], where
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Andrew Pinski wrote:
This is why OpenCL spec is not very good here really and not
consistent with the rest of the C/C++ standard. In fact I would say
we should treat it as the same as arrays out of bounds where it is
just undefined at runtime rather than an error. This
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20100605 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20100605/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
yazdanbakhsh amir.yazdanbak...@gmail.com writes:
I did what you said, and the same error happened :(
I'm sorry you're having trouble, but if you want us to be able to help
you you need to show us precisely what you did, precisely what
happened, and what you expected to happen.
Ian
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./configure
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.0 (GCC)
Using C++, shifting unsigned integers
uint64_t x;
x=x65; //produces same
--- Comment #9 from andris dot pavenis at iki dot fi 2010-06-05 06:38
---
Did some tests
Using my own patches (for libstdc++-v3 only error_constants.h and
autoconf/automake related stuff left over from earlier native builds of gcc for
DJGPP) build of Linux (x86_64, Fedora 12) to DJGPP
--- Comment #10 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-06-05 06:55 ---
Subject: Re: inline matmul for small matrix sizes
Dear Thomas,
The preferred way would therefore be to state the rank 2 * rank 2 problem as
do i=1,m
do j=1,n
c(i,j) = sum(a(i,:)
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 07:27
---
Kenny, I too don't like target_reinit, and FWIW
I fought the same battle before the patch was submitted.
The argument then, and I suspect the argument now,
is that although the function is horribly inefficient,
it
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 08:49
---
Dear Paul,
thanks a lot for your helpful comments.
Just one thing: I currently don't see how to refer to multiple
indices for an array element.
In the code you pointed out, this is done with a single variable,
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 08:49 ---
Shifts with shift count equal or greater than bitsize of the lhs type are
undefined in both C and C++ standards.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 09:31 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I have thought a little bit about this, and the problem is
a bit daunting ;-) Of course, this is at least partly because
my experience with the scalarizer is close to non-existant, but
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-05 09:52 ---
At revision 160309, I get
[macbook] lin/test% gfc -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer
-fwhole-program -flto rnflow.f90 --param hot-bb-frequency-fraction=1000
[macbook] lin/test% time a.out /dev/null
--- Comment #28 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-05 09:54 ---
Is there any interest to understand what broke the test and what fixed it? If
not, I'll close this pr as fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:10 ---
Confirmed. Testing a patch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
If the attached test case is compiled with current trunk, it runs almost 4
times more slowly than the same code compiled with gcc 4.4 and identical
options:
~/ujedi/splotchnewgcc -O2 -v bugrep.c -W -Wall
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
--- Comment #1 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2010-06-05 10:18
---
Created an attachment (id=20849)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20849action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44423
--- Comment #29 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:36
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:38 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:40 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Interesting! What's the difference between 17 and 18?
Exact representation.
Complete unrolling.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43529
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:40 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
OK, all this has a simple explanation. A revamped version of the original
testcase segfaults in runtime, at -O0.
! { dg-do compile }
! Test the fix for PR43895, in which the dummy 'a' was
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:47 ---
We have (4.4):
bb 2:
va.f[0] = a-r;
va.f[1] = a-g;
va.f[2] = a-b;
va.f[3] = 0.0;
pretmp.40 = va.v;
ivtmp.61 = 0;
bb 3:
att.12 = MEM[base: pre1, index: ivtmp.61] * pre2;
tmpatt = {att.12, att.12,
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:56 ---
Ok. Fact is that no pass can move invariant store/load pairs. But that's
pre-existing - the main issue is that the new SRA implementation ends up
rematerializing the stores inside the loop!
Diff of pre-esra vs.
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 11:42 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Shifts with shift count equal or greater than bitsize of the lhs type are
undefined in both C and C++ standards.
... and we should warn in trivial cases like this.
--
manu at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2010-06-05 11:44
---
richard,
the reason that i went into such details about my port in (2) was to get the
reinit_regs issue out in a place so that if someone decided to take on this
beast, they had all of the issues in front of
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-05 11:57
---
Subject: Re: real.c rounding not perfect
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, exploringbinary at gmail dot com wrote:
BTW, why doesn't gcc use David Gay's dtoa.c (http://www.netlib.org/fp/dtoa.c)
for correct rounding?
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 12:54 ---
Subject: Bug 44322
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Jun 5 12:54:41 2010
New Revision: 160312
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160312
Log:
PR c/44322
* c-typeck.c (build_unary_op): Merge
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 12:57 ---
Fixed for 4.6.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 13:14 ---
Subject: Bug 9694
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jun 5 13:13:46 2010
New Revision: 160313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160313
Log:
* testsuite/util/testsuite_abi.h: Work around glibc BZ
alphaev67-dec-osf5.1
echo timestamp s-options
nawk -f /home/jayk/src/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/opt-functions.awk -f
/home/jayk/src/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/opth-gen.awk \
optionlist tmp-options.h
awk: There is a regular expression error.
*?+ not preceded by valid expression
The source line
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 14:08 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
This is tiresome - it regtested fine, I update the tree and now I get failures
on:
alloc_comp_result_1.f90
alloc_comp_scalar_1.f90
alloc_comp_transformational_1.f90
All three segfault at
If I say /src/gcc/configure -prefix=$HOME, and it can't find /usr/lib/libgmp.a,
etc., perhaps it should probe as if I said -with-gmp=$HOME?
Similarly, if it doesn't already, it should probe /usr/local, well, er, if I
omit -prefix -- so equivalent to the first suggestion.
--
Summary:
Surprising. I'll try 4.4.
cc -c -g -DIN_GCC-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I/home/jayk/src/gcc-4.5.0/gcc
-I/home/jayk/src/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/. -I/home/jayk/src/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/../include
-I/home/jayk/src/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/home/jayk/include
-I/home/jayk/src/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/../libdecnumber
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 14:49 ---
Subject: Bug 44361
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jun 5 14:49:16 2010
New Revision: 160317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160317
Log:
PR c++/44361
* c-typeck.c (mark_exp_read): Handle
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 14:54 ---
Appears to have been introduced by r149722.
r149722 | manu | 2009-07-16 22:29:52 + (Thu, 16 Jul 2009) | 60 lines
2009-07-17 Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com
Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 15:02 ---
Subject: Bug 44361
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jun 5 15:02:32 2010
New Revision: 160318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160318
Log:
PR c++/44361
* c-typeck.c (mark_exp_read): Handle
--- Comment #2 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu 2010-06-05 15:13
---
similar with 4.4.4. I'll try 4.3. Eventually I might build but I never know the
minimal set of files to get for sysroot.. :(
^
cc: Error: /home/jayk/src/gcc-4.4.4/gcc/sel-sched-dump.c, line 258: In the
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 15:34
---
The testcase doesn't pass on 4.5 branch with RTL checking:
/home/eric/gnat/gnat6_45/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/pr44178.C:39:1:
internal compiler error: RTL check: expected elt 3 type 'B', have '0' (rtx
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 15:50 ---
Do you mean we should not use VA_ARGS in GCC? Then, what? static inline? Is
this warned by -pedantic? Shouldn't it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44426
--- Comment #1 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu 2010-06-05 15:52
---
fixed title, proceeding wih gawk and gcc 4.3
--
jay dot krell at cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-05 17:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc 4.5.0 requires
c9x compiler to build
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Do you mean we should not use VA_ARGS in GCC? Then, what? static inline? Is
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 17:40 ---
build_call_nofold in builtins.c introduced by:
r152236 | matz | 2009-09-28 12:54:23 + (Mon, 28 Sep 2009) | 54 lines
* builtins.c (interclass_mathfn_icode): New helper.
[...]
Variadic macros in
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 17:51 ---
Subject: Bug 43895
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jun 5 17:51:39 2010
New Revision: 160326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160326
Log:
2010-06-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44426
On GCC farm gcc40, system compiler is GCC 4.1, bootstrap with CC=gcc -m64
build/genautomata ../../trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md \
insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c
out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 18446739677587395048 bytes
make[3]: *** [s-automata] Error 1
fail at
Bootstrapping revision 160319 on powerpc-apple-darwin9 failed at stage 1 with:
...
gcc -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute
-Wold-style-definition -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2010-06-05 18:27 ---
Subject: Re: inline matmul for small matrix sizes
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I'm working on nested scalarization loops for the sum intrinsic
(pr43829) ;
inlining matmul should be straightforward after
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 18:32 ---
That's because of PR43332, which has been fixed just on the trunk, not on 4.5
branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44178
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 19:00 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 19:04 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc 4.5.0 requires
c9x compiler to build
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Do you mean we should not use VA_ARGS in GCC? Then,
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 19:10 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc 4.5.0 requires
c9x compiler to build
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Do you mean we
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 19:39 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
For the cases that are inserting UNKNOWN_LOCATION, I'd suggest just
changing all the call sites of the macro to pass UNKNOWN_LOCATION
explicitly, and removing the macro. That
--- Comment #7 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 20:03 ---
So I posted an updated patch for this to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00437.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44188
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2010-05-18 21:50:32 |2010-06-05
--- Comment #6 from gcc-bugzilla at contacts dot eelis dot net 2010-06-05
20:12 ---
Looks fixed in 4.4.1.
--
gcc-bugzilla at contacts dot eelis dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 20:41 ---
We do warn:
t.c:6:6: warning: right shift count = width of type [enabled by default]
t.c:8:6: warning: right shift count = width of type [enabled by default]
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #7 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-05 20:41 ---
OK, I'm testing a hack to rewrite_use_compare to make it know that it doesn't
have to introduce a temporary just to compare against constant zero. I'm also
doing a little tuning of the costs model for -Os, using
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-05 21:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc 4.5.0 requires
c9x compiler to build
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 19:04
--- Comment #1 from segher at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 22:57 ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00449.html
--
segher at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from segher at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 22:57 ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00449.html
--
segher at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 23:38 ---
Reconfirmed with revision 159764.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 23:39 ---
Indeed, so I'll close this.
4.4 gives
const char* DU::foo(typename BU::X) [with U = int]
and 4.6 gives
const char* DU::foo(typename BU::X) [with U = int, typename BU::X = int]
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 23:45 ---
This is not a duplicate of PR 99 (it shows it but that is not what this PR is
about). This is about the excessive diagnostics. In revision 159764 we get:
/home/manuel/pr20906.C:3:34: error: variable or field pop
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 23:48 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Indeed, so I'll close this.
4.4 gives
const char* DU::foo(typename BU::X) [with U = int]
and 4.6 gives
const char* DU::foo(typename BU::X) [with U = int, typename BU::X = int]
Could you
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 00:13 ---
This testcase does show PR99 but that is not what this PR is about. The
diagnostics of GCC would be clearer if it said:
/home/manuel/pr20313.C:10:30: error: invalid use of incomplete type struct
s
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 00:14 ---
In GCC 4.6 the output is:
/home/manuel/pr20313.C:10:30: error: invalid use of incomplete type struct
sanonymous
/home/manuel/pr20313.C:5:22: error: declaration of struct sanonymous
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #4 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2010-06-06 00:50 ---
Wow - a blast from the past! FWIW, I still think that the anonymous is
confusing. That 4.6 drops one of the messages is an improvement though...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20313
--- Comment #8 from schaub-johannes at web dot de 2010-06-06 01:01 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Dup of bug 15272.
I don't know about the internals of GCC, but from a Standard point of view, the
code in that bug shows a different problem than the code in my bug report.
In my bug
Source:
static const int __attribute__((used)) i = 1;
int main(void)
{
int r;
__asm__ (movl _i(%%rip), %0 : =r(r));
return r;
}
/usr/local/gcc46/bin/gcc -O3 -o attrused attrused.c
/usr/local/gcc46/bin/gcc -O3 -o attrused attrused.c -flto
Undefined symbols:
_i, referenced from:
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 02:04 ---
Subject: Bug 43945
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 6 02:04:04 2010
New Revision: 160335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160335
Log:
2010-06-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
Janus Weil
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 02:28 ---
Comment #0 is fixed by r160335, but the ICE in comment #4 is still there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43945
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 02:49 ---
Reduced test case for comment #4:
module foo_mod
type foo
contains
procedure, pass(a) :: doit
generic :: do = doit
end type
contains
subroutine doit(a)
class(foo) :: a
end subroutine
end
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 03:02 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Reduced test case for comment #4:
Even further reduced:
module foo_mod
type foo
contains
procedure :: doit
generic :: do = doit
end type
contains
subroutine doit(a)
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 03:17 ---
I guess we can close this, right?
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 03:26 ---
At r160335, I don't see the failure on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Maybe it has
been fixed by some middle-end changes by now. Can anyone confirm that the error
is gone?
--
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 03:37 ---
Here is a related test case (by Salvatore):
module s_mat_mod
implicit none
type :: s_sparse_mat
end type
contains
subroutine s_set_triangle(a)
class(s_sparse_mat), intent(inout) :: a
end subroutine
end
87 matches
Mail list logo
