https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #29 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d45af5c2eb1ba1e48449d8f3c5b4e3994a956f92
commit r13-3340-gd45af5c2eb1ba1e48449d8f3c5b4e3994a956f92
Author: Harald Anlauf
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #28 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #27)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #27 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #25)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has now a broader
> > usage (ARITH_OP_NOT_LITERAL_VALUE is a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53706|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has now a broader
> usage (ARITH_OP_NOT_LITERAL_VALUE is a bit long, ARITH_OP_NOT_CONSTANT is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
>
> Yeah, I was getting just rather close to this one...
>
Sorry, I didn't want to take it out of your hands.
It seemed that no real solution was emerging.
(In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 53706
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53706=edit
Updated patch
Here's a patch that incorporates comment#17 and comment#20 and adds a testcase
for comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated
> parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> Like this for the first part of the test from the patch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
> index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #20 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #19)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> > > And something similar for the rest of the test (the binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> > And something similar for the rest of the test (the binary operators).
>
> Like this:
>
It doesn't work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #17)
> And something similar for the rest of the test (the binary operators).
Like this:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.cc b/gcc/fortran/arith.cc
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin ---
There is the possibility to bail out at the very point where things are about
to go wrong, and hope that at resolution time simplification will happen.
Like this for the first part of the test from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:56:55PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
>
> --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to anlauf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)
> Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which
> addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators
> could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is it conceivable that a somewhat weaker form of simplification, which
addresses the parentheses as well as the basic unary and binary operators
could still be used for the time being?
There is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 07:35:30PM +, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> > If regtesting complete ok, and Mikael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> Here is an example, where the array simplifies using the host-associated
> parameter value instead of calling the contained function with the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 07:09:28PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
>
> --- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> If regtesting complete ok,
This is the case.
> and Mikael doesn't find any additional problems. Please commit.
The only thing I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 06:43:50PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
>
> --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> Harald, I looked at your patch and agree that simplification should be done.
> I don't know why I did not do it when I wrote walk_array_constructor().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #4 from G. Steinmetz ---
Case from c0 works now :
$ gfortran-13-20221009 z1.f90 && ./a.out
1. 2.
1. 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The case
program p
print *, +[ real :: +(1) ]
end
is solved by e.g.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/arith.c b/gcc/fortran/arith.c
index c4c1041afdf..b2fbeddeb49 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/arith.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93483
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=93483
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
30 matches
Mail list logo
