--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 17:43 ---
I see what's wrong, should be easy enough to fix.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 17:57 ---
Tentative patch:
Index: frontend-passes.c
===
--- frontend-passes.c (Revision 164404)
+++ frontend-passes.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -122,8 +122,11
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 21:59 ---
This should be better:
Index: frontend-passes.c
===
--- frontend-passes.c (Revision 164404)
+++ frontend-passes.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -122,8 +122,13
in comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 05:01
---
One point:
As far as I can see, you are calling compute_spt_call on functions in
'naked' expressions, as in
a = f(x)
but you are not following array or substring references, as in
a(f(x)) = g(f(y))
where
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:53 ---
Sounds like something for front end optimization.
Should we maybe generate the BLAS calls directly, instead of jumping
through the library functions?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:59 ---
This doesn't seem to happen any more.
Can we close this?
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 09:15 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I agree that the front-end is missing a statement walker to infer information
out of the code.
I have a patch for a more general statement walker, which I will probably
submit after
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 19:30 ---
This makes a ton of sense to do.
We should also convert the frontend passes to a general expression
walker, as you indicated in one comment.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 16:48 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Index: dependency.c
===
--- dependency.c(r#65533;#65533;vision 163944)
+++ dependency.c(copie de travail
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 22:51 ---
Subject: Bug 45576
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Sep 7 22:50:54 2010
New Revision: 163978
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163978
Log:
2010-09-07 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 22:52 ---
Fixed, closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 22:53 ---
Fixed, closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 19:44 ---
Subject: Bug 34145
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Sep 6 19:43:58 2010
New Revision: 163932
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163932
Log:
2010-09-06 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 19:44 ---
Fixed on trunk, closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 21:40 ---
Subject: Bug 36931
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Sep 6 21:40:15 2010
New Revision: 163934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163934
Log:
2010-09-06 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #21 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 16:17
---
Subject: Bug 45159
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Sep 3 16:16:34 2010
New Revision: 163834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163834
Log:
2010-09-03 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-02 19:33 ---
Working on it.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #20 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-27 12:09
---
Subject: Bug 45159
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Aug 27 12:08:47 2010
New Revision: 163584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163584
Log:
2010-08-27 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-27 12:12
---
Fixed on trunk.
Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45435
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-15 20:41 ---
Hello Paul,
I think the patch you committed to 4.5 causes a regression for normal
loops, which are now handled as overlapping.
I think I fixed that in
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=162829
--- Comment #12 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-09 19:35
---
Subject: Bug 44235
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 9 19:34:49 2010
New Revision: 163041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163041
Log:
2010-08-09 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #15 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-09 21:54
---
Here's another case where we generate a temporary:
program main
integer a(100)
a(10:16) = a(11:17:1)
end program main
i...@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Dep-9 gfortran -Warray-temporaries d1.f90
d1.f90:3.13:
a(10
--- Comment #16 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-09 22:56
---
(In reply to comment #15)
Here's another case where we generate a temporary:
program main
integer a(100)
a(10:16) = a(11:17:1)
end program main
Here's a tentative patch:
Index: dependency.c
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 16:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=21437)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21437action=view)
Proposed patch
This patch seems to work, and do more or less the right thing.
It inserts the upper bound only
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 22:40
---
(In reply to comment #10)
This patch seems to work, and do more or less the right thing.
No counter-example of that!-) thanks.
That's good.
It inserts the upper bound only for strides not equal to one
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-07 11:17 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Hi Dominique,
It turns out that the test in comment #0 was not fixed by the patch in comment
#5, but by revision 162966. However with the slight change
a(4:23:3) = a(4:22:3
--- Comment #14 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-06 22:33
---
Subject: Bug 45159
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Aug 6 22:33:37 2010
New Revision: 162966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162966
Log:
2010-08-06 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 07:05 ---
Confirmed, also fails with current trunk.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-03 22:02
---
Subject: Bug 45159
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 3 22:02:30 2010
New Revision: 162848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162848
Log:
2010-08-03 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 16:54 ---
Subject: Bug 36854
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 2 16:53:51 2010
New Revision: 162824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162824
Log:
2010-08-02 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 19:00
---
This fixes the test case from comment #0, and looks much more sane.
Let's see if this survives regression-testing...
Index: dependency.c
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 22:04
---
Subject: Bug 45159
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 2 22:04:36 2010
New Revision: 162829
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162829
Log:
2010-08-02 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #12 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 22:16
---
(In reply to comment #5)
[macbook] lin/test% gfc -Warray-temporaries nf.f90
nf.f90:293.30:
if ( ii1 ) x(i:i+nxy-1) = x(i:i+nxy-1) - au3(i-nxy:i-1)*x(i-nxy:i-1)
1
Warning
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-01 17:37 ---
Confirmed for the test cases in comment #0.
You were right that my patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-08/msg3.html
doesn't fix this. I'll have a look...
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-01 18:12 ---
This piece of code
/* If no intention of reversing or reversing is explicitly
inhibited, convert backward dependence to overlap. */
if ((reverse == NULL
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-25 19:31 ---
Subject: Bug 40628
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jul 25 19:31:37 2010
New Revision: 162519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162519
Log:
2010-07-25 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-25 19:37 ---
Fixed on trunk. Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-08 05:53 ---
Fixed on trunk. Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 09:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=21080)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21080action=view)
proposed patch (causes unrelated breakage)
This patch causes a segfault in dynamic_dispatch_6.f03, although
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 09:20 ---
It seems the dynamic_dispatch_6.f03 is independent of this patch.
I'll submit this patch anyway.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44693
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.0
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-03 17:03 ---
Confirmed.
Wrong-code takes precedence over missed-optimization, but this is
still something that should be fixed.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-03 17:08 ---
Confirmed.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44678
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 22:03 ---
I have a patch.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 22:54 ---
Subject: Bug 44678
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jun 26 22:54:39 2010
New Revision: 161444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161444
Log:
2010-06-27 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 22:56 ---
Fixed, closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-18 21:12 ---
Mine.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 20:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Still true for gcc version 4.6.0 20100509 (experimental) (GCC)
I don't know if it's worth the extra work, but this can be tackled in
gfc_conv_substring
--- Comment #22 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-07 18:11
---
Adjusting subject, setting severity to enhancement and
adding diagnostic keyword.(In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #18)
Expected:
a) Allow it as extension (-std=gnu or -std=legacy; especially
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44430
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44430
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 20:15 ---
This was between rev. 149577 (works) and rev. 149607 (does not work).
Still narrowing it down a bit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44430
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 20:52 ---
I agree. Rev. 149586 is:
2009-07-13 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/40646
* module.c (mio_symbol): If the symbol has formal arguments,
the formal namespace will be present
--- 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 #17 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 06:50
---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jun 4 06:50:11 2010
New Revision: 160253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160253
Log:
2010-06-04 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #18 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 06:51
---
Fixed (finally).
Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 07:06 ---
After the discussion, I think we can close this as WONTFIX.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 07:15 ---
Can we close this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40452
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 22:31 ---
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 you
have to learn sometime
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 22:39 ---
The particular test case from comment #1 is now fixed.
Here's one that still fails:
subroutine foo(a, b)
real :: a(40), b(40)
a(1:20:3) = a(1:19:3)
a(1:19:3) = a(1:19:3)
end subroutine foo
g...@linux-fd1f
in
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44397
--- Comment #16 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-03 21:45
---
Looking at what is actually in there...
associated.c
This doesn't have any bounds issues.
date_and_time.c
I'll replace an assert with a runtime_error.
dtime.c
No changes needed.
etime.c
No changes
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-31 20:22
---
Subject: Bug 36928
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 31 20:22:10 2010
New Revision: 160085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160085
Log:
2010-05-31 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #14 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 05:30
---
Fixed for the constant case.
Still to do, but much harder: A case like
a(n,m,2) = a(n+1,m,2).
Unassigning myself for now.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-29 22:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 10:11
---
I've gotten a bit further with this.
For x(la:ua:sa) = x(lb,ub,sb), there can be no collision
if abs(la-lb) mod gcd(sa, sb) == 0
where gcd is the greatest common divisor.
This will at least fix the test case
--- Comment #12 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 21:20
---
(In reply to comment #11)
You probably mean if abs(la-lb) mod gcd(sa, sb) != 0 (assuming
x(lb:ub:sb);-).
Yes, I had this reversed when I wrote this.
Note that if I am not mistaken, this result extends
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
OtherBugsDependingO 36854
nThis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 21:53
---
This is now
real, dimension(2) :: test
integer:: n
test = n
! print *, test
return
end function test
program arr
real, dimension(2) :: res
res = test(2)
print *, res
end program
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-16 09:00 ---
Richard, what do you think of this?
Does it make sense to do the dependency analysis in the
front end?
Does Graphite (about which I know next to nothing, I admit) have
the necessary infrastructure to detect
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44156
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-15 15:55 ---
I'm working on this (designing an algorithm so far).
It is an interesting problem.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-15 17:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It is an interesting problem.
Should not it be handled by the middle-end, possibly with the help of
graphite?
If we can improve dependency analysis in the front end, where we
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-14 09:15 ---
New timings, on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I split off the invalidate
subroutine to make sure the optimizers don't optimize this out:
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp gfortran -O3 matmul.f90 invalidate.f90
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp
+ a*b
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 09:58 ---
This works now.
Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44114
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44114
.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 14:37 ---
Depends on both -O3 and -g:
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp gfortran proc_ptr_23.f90
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp gfortran -O3 proc_ptr_23.f90
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp gfortran -O3 -g proc_ptr_23.f90
/tmp/ccALU2k0.o:(.debug_info+0x81
--- Comment #48 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 18:04
---
Any news on this?
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-09 11:12 ---
Sorry, I cannot parse CCP exploits undefined behavior.
Why should there be no warning for this, when this warning
was present in gcc 3.x?
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.1 4.5.0 4.6.0
Known to work
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 15:00 ---
Adjusting subject to make this show up on the
regression list...
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:09
---
(In reply to comment #22)
It is my intention to change the array descriptor representation and
to start with an API that provides the (lbound, ubound,stride) values.
In fact, this API has already been put
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43885
1 - 100 of 1511 matches
Mail list logo
