http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-11
00:17:38 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Nov 11 00:17:34 2010
New Revision: 166579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166579
Log:
PR tree-optimize/38669
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/
--- Comment #13 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 21:12 ---
Fixed on trunk(4.4) and 4.3.
Thanks for the report!
--
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #12 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 20:53 ---
Subject: Bug 38669
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Jan 14 20:53:18 2009
New Revision: 143383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143383
Log:
2009-01-14 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/35681
*
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 23:01
---
Huh, the regression state of this bug looks weird. So we have a patch applied
on trunk, but known-to-fail is both 4.3.3 and 4.4.0 - but 4.3.2 works? And
the target milestone is 4.4.0? If it is really a regressio
--- Comment #10 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-06 21:57 ---
Subject: Bug 38669
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Jan 6 21:57:19 2009
New Revision: 143134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143134
Log:
2009-01-06 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/38669
*
--- Comment #9 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 18:44 ---
Subject: Bug 38669
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Jan 5 18:44:09 2009
New Revision: 143084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143084
Log:
2009-01-05 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/38669
PR
--- Comment #8 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 13:37 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
It caused PR 38726
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
--- Comment #7 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 19:12 ---
Subject: Bug 38669
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan 4 19:12:16 2009
New Revision: 143057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143057
Log:
2009-01-04 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/35681
*
--- Comment #6 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:40 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Created an attachment (id=17016)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016&action=view) [edit]
> > fix
> >
> > Does anyone know the use of the b
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-31 10:47 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=17016)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016&action=view) [edit]
> fix
>
> Does anyone know the use of the block variable I remove in this patch
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
--- Comment #4 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 16:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=17016)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016&action=view)
fix
Does anyone know the use of the block variable I remove in this patch?
--
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 15:02 ---
At revision 142760, there is no temporary, so there is no bug.
That's something I missed in my patch, that's true.
The bug is still there however.
Change this:
call tq_tvgh (var_f% av (k_lev:,1), p(k_lev:))
to th
--- Comment #2 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 14:04 ---
without derived types:
program gfcbu84_main
! use gfcbug84
implicit none
integer :: jplev, k_lev
real :: p(42)
real, pointer :: q(:)
jplev = 42
k_lev = 1
allocate (q(jplev))
call tq_tvgh (q(
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 11:55 ---
Maybe:
r142766 | mikael | 2008-12-15 19:08:42 +0100 (Mon, 15 Dec 2008) | 14 lines
Added Mikael as CC.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
|
16 matches
Mail list logo
