https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #35 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:74ef4221b5ebb1122349ad48422ddc40e98c267d
commit r13-7502-g74ef4221b5ebb1122349ad48422ddc40e98c267d
Author: Harald Anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #34 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The missed-optimization (duplicate temporaries) is now tracked in pr110241.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #33 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c1691509e5a8875f36c068a5ea101bf13f140948
commit r14-1795-gc1691509e5a8875f36c068a5ea101bf13f140948
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #32 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-June/059435.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #31 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #30)
> Now that I think again, I'm not even sure we would regress.
> My concern was that the data would remain NULL after the realloc(NULL, 0),
> and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #29)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > > > (In reply to Mikael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #29 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > > (In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> > > >
> > > > This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #27 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> > >
> > > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55297|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> >
> > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings),
> > and on pr69955.f90 (that's one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
>
> This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings),
> and on pr69955.f90 (that's one extra __builtin_malloc).
This removes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #22)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
> index 1c7ea900ea1..cc1dddbeb33 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
> +++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #22 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 55300 [details]
> > Alternative patch v2
>
> This patch fails for me on several occasions including
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #21 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
>
> This patch fails for me on several occasions including the testsuite.
> I guess the logic was intended as follows:
>
Well, not really, it seems wasteful to use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> Created attachment 55300 [details]
> Alternative patch v2
This patch fails for me on several occasions including the testsuite.
I guess the logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #15)
>
> Your patch also seems to fix (at first glance) the character case as well
> as type, so this appears to be the right direction.
Yet, your patch identifies a bug in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55296|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin ---
Looking further at the implementation of gfc_trans_allocate_array_storage, the
size vs elem_size dance can be removed from my patch, as size is almost unused
in the onstack case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #13)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> > > Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> Will look at your approach later.
For the draft testcase, your patch seems to handle the explicit temporaries,
but there is a runtime error (memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 55297
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55297=edit
Draft testcase
This testcase tries to probe many different paths for real array ctors.
I have similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> > Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array
> > constructor,
> > and the code would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array constructor,
> and the code would ICE on empty constructors of derived type.
>
Looking at the code,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #9)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> >
> > I haven't understood yet how (and why) temporaries are generated for
> > procedure arguments even when it is known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55296
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55296=edit
Another way to fix this problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|anlauf at gmx dot de |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.2 |9.3
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |9.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #2)
> Actually, the problem is not related to zero length arrays, but to the
> constructor [integer::]. I think this is related to several other PRs.
Looking at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
38 matches
Mail list logo
