--- 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 #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 #15 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 17:05
---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Aug 25 17:05:10 2009
New Revision: 151085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151085
Log:
2009-08-25 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-28 09:04
---
Still missing in intrinsics (at least as far as
grep -L bounds `grep -l gfc_array *.c` tells me):
associated.c
date_and_time.c
dtime.c
etime.c
iso_c_binding.c
move_alloc.c
random.c
stat.c
unpack_generic.c
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-28 09:57 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Still missing in intrinsics (at least as far as
For those which have one-dimensional arrays, one should consider adding the
checks in trans*.c as this is faster for the non -fcheck=bounds
--- Comment #12 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-19 15:07
---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jul 19 15:07:21 2009
New Revision: 149792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149792
Log:
2009-07-19 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-21 20:14
---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Oct 21 20:12:52 2008
New Revision: 141276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141276
Log:
2008-10-21 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-16 10:18
---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 16 10:16:38 2008
New Revision: 141167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141167
Log:
2008-10-16 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 16:29 ---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Oct 15 16:27:58 2008
New Revision: 141144
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141144
Log:
2008-10-15 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 16:31 ---
Matmul and spread are also done.
Still a few to go...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34670
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 19:44 ---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jul 7 19:43:33 2008
New Revision: 137594
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137594
Log:
2008-07-07 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:34 ---
Files still missing, from generated/*:
cshift1_*.c
eoshift1_*.c
eoshift3_*.c
matmul_*.c
reshape_*.c
shape_*.c
transpose_*.c
From intrinsic/*.c:
cshift0.c
eoshift0.c
eoshift2.c
reshape_generic.c
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-11 20:21 ---
Subject: Bug 34670
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jan 11 20:21:05 2008
New Revision: 131473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131473
Log:
2008-01-11 Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-06 21:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=14888)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14888action=view)
partial implementation
This is an implementation for the array intrinsics, but I'm having
trouble with writing
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-06 21:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=14889)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14889action=view)
Test case that doesn't work
This test case fails with my patch, although the dg-shouldfail directive
should take
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2008-01-05 11:48 ---
Subject: Re: bounds checking for array intrinsics
Hi Jerry,
Do we want the overhead of bounds checking at run time on all these
intrinsics?
In the case of no bounds checking, it's a single if statement.
Is
--
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 #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-05 00:01
---
Do we want the overhead of bounds checking at run time on all these intrinsics?
Is there a way to do it without the overhead?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34670
19 matches
Mail list logo
