--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-11 16:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=18783)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18783action=view)
Provisional fix for this PR
Hi Salvatore,
You might like to exercise this patch. It seems to work correctly
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 04:32 ---
Dear Dominique and Steve,
This is clearly mine. I cannot diagnose it but have a pretty shrewd idea of
what is happening.
I will apply an 'obvious' patch after regtesting.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 05:17 ---
Subject: Bug 41613
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 7 05:17:29 2009
New Revision: 152513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152513
Log:
2009-10-07 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-10 16:21 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Janus,
- resolve_code (code, ns);
return true;
I had wondered about the function of that resolve_code. If it can be safely
removed, do it. Otherwise another variant of my
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-10 18:16 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
This seems to be because the 'resolve_code' call above resolves not only the
assignment statement itself, but everything that comes after it. So in this
case the PPC call is resolved
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 10:35 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Tobias, If I do not hear from you, I can commit tonight.
Correction tonight :-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 19:06 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Wierd! I think that this will require Daniel and Janus to go back over their
patches in the period concerned or to identify the specific revision. I will
try to do that tonight.
OK
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 20:04 ---
Subject: Bug 41297
Author: pault
Date: Wed Sep 9 20:03:49 2009
New Revision: 151576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151576
Log:
2009-09-09 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 20:07 ---
Fixed on trunk
Thanks richi!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 10:55 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Ah, can you check/commit
+ gfc_add_block_to_block (block, lse-pre);
+ gfc_add_block_to_block (block, rse-pre);
+ tmp = gfc_evaluate_now (rse-expr, block);
+ tmp
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 12:51 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Note what happens if the critical part is doubled up, thus:
subroutine no_func_config (prc_lib)
type(nf_t), intent(inout), target :: prc_lib
integer :: n_in
type(string_t
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 07:04 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Why there is a dependence on the preceding statement, I have no idea. However,
expr_type is not being set to EXPR_PPC, as the following shows (causes lots of
failures by the way :-()
Index
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 11:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=18504)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18504action=view)
Fix for the PR
As soon as it has finished regtesting, I will commit as 'obvious'.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 14:21 ---
Subject: Bug 41258
Author: pault
Date: Sat Sep 5 14:20:51 2009
New Revision: 151451
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151451
Log:
2009-09-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 14:25 ---
Subject: Bug 41258
Author: pault
Date: Sat Sep 5 14:25:39 2009
New Revision: 151452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151452
Log:
2009-09-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 14:31 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.4.
Joost, many thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-26 09:50 ---
Janus,
Thanks for reporting this. In fact, the bug is worse than you report; the
namespace of 'F1' is never freed!
ns-refs is set to one by gfc_get_namespace
it is incremented in decl.c(get_proc_name):800
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-25 18:55 ---
Subject: Bug 41062
Author: pault
Date: Tue Aug 25 18:54:58 2009
New Revision: 151092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=151092
Log:
2008-08-25 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-17 20:17 ---
Subject: Bug 41062
Author: pault
Date: Mon Aug 17 20:17:12 2009
New Revision: 150858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150858
Log:
2008-08-17 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-16 20:04 ---
Subject: Bug 40847
Author: pault
Date: Sun Aug 16 20:04:40 2009
New Revision: 150810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150810
Log:
2009-08-16 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-16 21:02 ---
Subject: Bug 40847
Author: pault
Date: Sun Aug 16 21:01:50 2009
New Revision: 150815
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150815
Log:
2009-08-16 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-16 21:02 ---
Fixed on trunk, 4.4 and 4.3.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-16 21:03 ---
I missed 'fixed' !
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 08:41 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Works for me on x86-64-linux and seems also to work on several other systems
according to the testresults mailing list.
Works for me too at revision 150482 on x86_64/FC9
Cheers
Paul
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 08:57 ---
* expr.c (simplify_const_ref)
* symbol.c (gfc_set_default_type, generate_isocbinding_symbol)
These two produce leaks.
* trans-decl.c (create_function_arglist)
This is OK - the new cl is threaded into the list
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug 40847
Author: pault
Date: Wed Aug 5 16:10:19 2009
New Revision: 150493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150493
Log:
2009-08-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 11:14 ---
I am going to apply this, together with testcase, as obvious:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c (revision 150404)
+++ gcc/fortran
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 12:53 ---
Subject: Bug 40875
Author: pault
Date: Tue Aug 4 12:41:08 2009
New Revision: 150454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150454
Log:
2009-08-04 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-03 17:01 ---
Michael,
Thanks for the catch - it's confirmed.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #43 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-01 13:45 ---
Subject: Bug 40011
Author: pault
Date: Sat Aug 1 13:45:12 2009
New Revision: 150333
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150333
Log:
2009-08-01 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-22 07:13 ---
This fix bootstraps and regtests on x86_64/FC9. I will commit it as obvious
tonight.
Paul
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-22 18:12 ---
Subject: Bug 40726
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jul 22 18:12:35 2009
New Revision: 149952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149952
Log:
2009-07-22 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-22 18:12 ---
Subject: Bug 40796
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jul 22 18:12:35 2009
New Revision: 149952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149952
Log:
2009-07-22 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-22 19:13 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-20 07:28 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
I pointed this out to Paul already, but appearantly it is still stuck in
his
whole-file patch queue.
Last incarnation of that patch (containing
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-20 13:30 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Any reference, within 'fun', to 'q' clears the fault. I guess that the absence
of a reference prevents 'q' from being presented to be nullified. I'll take a
look tonight.
Paul
--
http
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-21 04:51 ---
Subject: Bug 40726
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jul 21 04:51:30 2009
New Revision: 149846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149846
Log:
2009-07-21 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-10 11:37 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
PR fortran/40472
PR fortran/50520
* simplify.c (gfc_simplify_spread): Fix the case that source=
is a scalar.
Hey, Tobias are you fixing future PRs
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-10 17:33 ---
I never accepted this to be a regression and now, when it is the only one, I
feel that it is time to register that :-) It will, of course, be dealt with
once I attack the array descriptor business. ice-on-invalid
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 16:49 ---
Subject: Bug 40629
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jul 9 16:48:50 2009
New Revision: 149422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149422
Log:
2008-07-09 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 17:06 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Thus: I think this PR be closed, can it?
Tobias,
I was keeping it open for comment #8. I already built a patch for zero,
array-to-array and constant constructor assignments
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 17:08 ---
Thanks for the report
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 17:10 ---
Sorry - I forgot about 40629.
Closing, closing now!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 19:28 ---
Subject: Bug 40440
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jul 9 19:28:20 2009
New Revision: 149431
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149431
Log:
2009-07-09 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 19:29 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.4
Thanks for the patch
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-10 04:37 ---
Subject: Bug 39334
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jul 10 04:37:19 2009
New Revision: 149456
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149456
Log:
2009-07-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 09:48 ---
Well. I suppose that I should accept the bug :-)
I will commit the fix to 4.4 over the weekend, so please try to test it to
destruction on 4.5.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 13:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=18157)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18157action=view)
Fix for bug - not regtested yet
This handles host_assoc_function_*.f90 correctly but is not yet regtested
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 13:28 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
That is solved by adding:
i = 0
to subroutine test (while any other number causes the abortion).
Indeed - that was in the test originally; I do not know what happened to it.
I'll put
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 13:29 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
See pr40591 comments #4 and #5.
Indeed! I'll fix it tonight.
Thanks, HJ
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 04:38 ---
Subject: Bug 40591
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jul 8 04:38:06 2009
New Revision: 149362
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149362
Log:
2008-07-08 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 05:01 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The following program fails with:
procedure(sub), pointer :: pptr2
1
Error: Interface 'sub' of procedure 'pptr2' at (1) must be explicit
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-05 19:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40551
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 5 19:06:05 2009
New Revision: 149261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149261
Log:
2009-07-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-05 19:14 ---
Subject: Bug 40646
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 5 19:13:59 2009
New Revision: 149262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149262
Log:
2009-07-05 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
and Tobias
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-04 12:22 ---
I have just posted a fix on the list, so I might as well take the bug.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 08:23 ---
I might as well confirm it:-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 10:51 ---
Richard,
to set the upper bound correctly you have to build a new array type instead
of re-using TREE_TYPE (dest). The types TYPE_DOMAIN will specify the size
of the slice. Thus,
slice_type
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 11:02 ---
Richard,
It even works!
Thanks again
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 06:24 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Subject: Bug 40551
Tobias,
You were right - contiguous does need initializing. Not for this case but some
of the other uses that I referred to.
Cheers
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40598
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 12:57 ---
Modifying trans-expr (gfc_trans_zero_assign) to:
tmp = build4 (ARRAY_RANGE_REF, TREE_TYPE (dest), dest,
build_int_cst (gfc_array_index_type, 3),
NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 09:20 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
The following fixes the problem. It needs to be checked to see if it is
over-restrictive.
Yes it is - there is no need for this when the lhs section is contiguous
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 09:23 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Can this be backported to 4.4? If so, it should happen soonish to be in 4.4.1.
Paul, shall I do it for you?
Thanks for the offer, Tobias - I'll be attending to it tonight.
Did you see
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 15:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=18092)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18092action=view)
Provisional fix for the PR
This is not yet regtested but will be in an hour or two.
I must also run through
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 16:45 ---
Subject: Bug 40443
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:44:49 2009
New Revision: 149056
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149056
Log:
2009-06-29 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 16:46 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.4
Thanks for the report
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 20:39 ---
Subject: Bug 40551
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 29 20:38:59 2009
New Revision: 149062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149062
Log:
2009-06-29 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-28 20:31 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The following fixes the problem. It needs to be checked to see if it is
over-restrictive.
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 20:02 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Too quick. That should be: mpz_init_set_si or mpz_init_set_ui; the _init_ was
missing.
Dang it! OK that's right. Can you commit that correction - I cannot do so
until Thursday
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 04:39 ---
Subject: Bug 40472
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 22 04:39:40 2009
New Revision: 148775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148775
Log:
2009-06-22 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 04:41 ---
Subject: Bug 40443
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 22 04:41:10 2009
New Revision: 148776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148776
Log:
2009-06-22 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 04:42 ---
Subject: Bug 40443
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 22 04:41:53 2009
New Revision: 148777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148777
Log:
2009-06-22 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 04:48 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Paul, what's your point of view on replacing the linear list by the splay-tree
('con_by_offset' in gfc_expr)?
I do not know enough about splay trees to comment; however, is the problem
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:21 ---
Subject: Bug 39800
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jun 20 09:21:06 2009
New Revision: 148741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148741
Log:
2009-06-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:22 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.4.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:58 ---
This one must be fixed. When the upper limit on array simplification was
removed, it was with initialization expressions in mind. In this case, the
assignment compiles and runs at a sensible pace
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 10:00 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Probably a duplicate of pr34554
Essentially yes, but the compile-time simplifier for spread (and others) was
introduced only recently.
As I say above, this is not an initialization
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 21:58 ---
Subject: Bug 40440
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jun 19 21:58:27 2009
New Revision: 148731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148731
Log:
2009-06-19 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 22:10 ---
Subject: Bug 40402
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jun 19 22:10:45 2009
New Revision: 148732
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148732
Log:
2009-06-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 22:11 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.4.
Thanks for the report
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 09:44 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Juergen: Thanks for the report, but it is not a regression - it might not
crash
with 4.3 (or your 4.4) but I think that's just by chance.
Paul, I think also this bug touches code
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 20:51 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I am not sure that your testcase should be allowed at all! I am not sure
that
I understand what it means.
I think it is valid and not different from:
Yes, I understood after a bit
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 00:20 ---
Adding at trans-expr.c:2740
!(e-symtree e-symtree-n.sym-attr.pointer)
eliminates the problem in the reduced testcase and allows the original testcase
to run correctly. This has not been regtested yet
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-15 13:21 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Paul, I CC you as you are our generic-resolution expert.
Well, gosh golly, that's a mantle that I did not seek:-)
Note that my account at the CC address is no longer valid - I'll fix
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 15:52 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Changing
type :: polarization_t
logical :: polarized = .false.
integer :: spin_type = 0
integer :: multiplicity = 0
type(state_matrix_t) :: state
end type
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 06:21 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I forgot to add that this demonstrates a proper fix. At the moment, it
generates an extra, spurious error. I'll see if I cannot do a proper job
tonight.
Je vous remercie pour le rapport
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 20:12 ---
Subject: Bug 40402
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jun 11 20:11:59 2009
New Revision: 148396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148396
Log:
2009-06-11 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-12 05:20 ---
Confirmed on FC8/x86 running in a VMware on an XP professional machine if
you get that:-)
Anyway, it's not limited to Darwin nor to 64 bits. It's not present, as far as
I can tell with gcc-4.4 20080624
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-11 05:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=17980)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17980action=view)
Fix for the problem
This regtests and bootstraps on trunk.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #28 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-01 18:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=17942)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17942action=view)
A progression of -fwhole-file
This patch is as far as I have got. It incorporates module procedures
--- Comment #27 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-30 08:27 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
types that are identical
I'm not sure this is related, but note comment #8. Even identical types are
not
identical, unless they are sequence type.
Joost,
No, this is not related
--- Comment #24 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-29 15:33 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
I've added a 'related' PR40275 on -combine not working for Fortran. I think
that as soon as the -fwhole-file patch is added (default or not yet ;-) there
would be interest in -combine
--- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-22 13:40 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
the patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-05/msg00244.html
allows cp2k in its single source file form, 640klines as made available in
PR40005, to compile with -fwhole
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-19 05:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Can you attach a working example? I failed to apply your patch and figure out
which diffed file is what.
Hi Tobias,
It's a reversed diff!
Hi Thomas,
Works for me on FC9/x86_64 - what
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 04:46 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
In the following program, env%n should be equal to zero when entering the
routine titi but one gets the output :
10 0
5 10
instead of
10 0
5 0
I get the correct output
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-12 06:07 ---
Since I am working on it, I had better take it :-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-10 07:23 ---
Subject: Bug 38863
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 10 07:23:30 2009
New Revision: 147329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=147329
Log:
2009-05-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-10 08:56 ---
Problem in comment #1 is fixed on trunk.
Cheers
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-10 10:21 ---
Subject: Bug 40018
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 10 10:21:08 2009
New Revision: 147331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=147331
Log:
2009-05-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-10 10:22 ---
Subject: Bug 40018
Author: pault
Date: Sun May 10 10:22:37 2009
New Revision: 147332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=147332
Log:
2009-05-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran
301 - 400 of 3028 matches
Mail list logo
