[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-03-04 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #35 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-04 08:10 --- Subject: Bug 30406 Author: fxcoudert Date: Sun Mar 4 08:10:25 2007 New Revision: 122523 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122523 Log: PR target/30406 *

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-13 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #34 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 19:04 --- (In reply to comment #32) This was on my list of patches to submit today really, I finally actually got time to able to submit patches today. I was able to submit two other patches today and I have another

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #29 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 17:24 --- Hi Dominique, Patch posted (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00927.html), so you look how it's done. Patches in PR tend to not get reviewed, so we need people to post them to the list. Yes, it takes

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #30 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-02-10 22:12 --- Subject: Re: ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions Francois-Xavier, Thanks for the work. In order to improve future contributions, I have a few questions: (1) do you need a regtesting of the patch on 4.2 and OSX 10.4?

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #31 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 22:21 --- (In reply to comment #30) (1) do you need a regtesting of the patch on 4.2 and OSX 10.4? Will 4.2.0 20070124 good enough or should I upgrade to a more recent version? It's OK. The change is simple and that

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #32 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 22:42 --- This was on my list of patches to submit today really, I finally actually got time to able to submit patches today. I was able to submit two other patches today and I have another one in testing right now. --

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-02-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #33 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-02-10 22:44 --- Subject: Re: ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions Thanks for the advice, I'll try to follow it next time. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30406

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-29 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #25 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-01-29 15:13 --- What is the fate of the patch in comment #22? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30406

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-29 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #26 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-29 15:30 --- (In reply to comment #25) What is the fate of the patch in comment #22? I suppose Andrew should submit it for review by the PowerPC maintainers. If he doesn't have time, you could do it (unless he objects):

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-29 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #28 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-01-29 20:47 --- Subject: Re: ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions I suppose Andrew should submit it for review by the PowerPC maintainers. If he doesn't have time, you could do it (unless he objects): Never do today what someone else

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-13 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #24 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-01-13 17:09 --- I have applied the change to the latest snapshot (4.3.0 20070112) and the tests compile now without error on OSX 10.3.9. Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30406

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-11 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #23 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-11 08:08 --- The same code seems to be present in 4.1 and 4.2 branches. Andrew, would you mind include add a testcase to testsuite/gfortran.dg/ when you commit a patch? (if Andrew doesn't commit the patch, same request for

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 23:02 --- rs6000_function_value looks at TYPE_PRECISION -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 23:04 --- if ((INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (valtype) TYPE_PRECISION (valtype) BITS_PER_WORD) || POINTER_TYPE_P (valtype)) mode = TARGET_32BIT ? SImode : DImode; else mode = TYPE_MODE (valtype);

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 23:04 --- Ignore that last comment (though that is where the problem is). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30406

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 23:09 --- Happens on all PPC including GNU/Linux. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/30406] ICE in LOGICAL(8) functions

2007-01-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 23:20 --- It should be rewritten as: if ((INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (valtype) GET_MODE_BITSIZE (TYPE_MODE (valtype)) BITS_PER_WORD) || POINTER_TYPE_P (valtype)) mode = TARGET_32BIT ? SImode : DImode; else