--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-04 19:21 ---
Subject: Bug 45019
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Sep 4 19:20:53 2010
New Revision: 163863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163863
Log:
2010-09-04 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-04 19:21 ---
FIXED. Thanks for the bugreport.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 08:40 ---
Subject: Bug 45019
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Jul 23 08:40:00 2010
New Revision: 162448
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162448
Log:
2010-07-23 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 09:52 ---
Fixed on the trunk and the 4.4 branch. Waiting for 4.5.1 release to apply for
4.5.2 (delay requested by RM as there is already a 4.5.1rc1).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45019
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 06:44 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I have now asked at
Seemingly, I break the dependency chain in comment 3; thus, only with an added
TARGET in the module variable declaration and with an assumed-shaped dummy in
bar the
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 08:40 ---
Mine. Additional fix is needed for gfc_symbols_could_alias:
--- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
@@ -2811,6 +2811,17 @@ gfc_symbols_could_alias (gfc_symbol *lsym, gfc_symbol
*rsym)
if
--- Comment #9 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-07-22 10:00 ---
Subject: Re: Aliasing of TARGET dummy argument not
detected correctly
Dear Tobias,
I think the patch below looks fine, however, if I set a break point, the
function gfc_check_dependency
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 11:35 ---
Subject: Bug 45019
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jul 22 11:35:09 2010
New Revision: 162410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162410
Log:
2010-07-22 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 15:57 ---
Confirm. Fails with ifort, gfortran 4.1 and 4.6, and with pgf90. Works with
Crayftn and Pathscale.
I think the scalar constraint does not matter (it's not a restricted pointer as
both actual and dummy are TARGET),
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 16:32 ---
For completeness: In F2003, see Section 12.4.1.7 (3)(b) and in F95 see 12.4.1.6
(1)(c).
dependency.c's gfc_check_dependency is the place where a check needs to be
added. As pointerness is already checked, I think
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 16:44 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
if (sym1.attr.target sym2-attr.target
Actually, I wonder whether this is really testable:
the actual argument is a target
thus, one probably needs to use:
sym1 = expr1-symtree-n.sym;
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 16:57 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Actually, I wonder whether this is really testable:
the actual argument is a target
thus, one probably needs to use:
The other question is how to deal with the restrict middle-end
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 18:43 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
For instance:
arr(1) = 5
arg(1) = 6
if (arg(1) /= 6) call abort()
Make that arr(1) in the last line - otherwise it is pointless.
Maybe that's indeed a question for either
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 21:37 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Maybe that's indeed a question for either the j3 mailing list or for c.l.f.
I have now asked at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/9849942aca1d54f4
14 matches
Mail list logo
