On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, FX wrote:
>
> > Your change is OK (we don’t want to use the type of the result, but the
> > type of the argument indeed).
> >
> >
> > > Index: gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
> > > ===
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, FX wrote:
> Your change is OK (we don’t want to use the type of the result, but the type
> of the argument indeed).
>
>
> > Index: gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c (r
Your change is OK (we don’t want to use the type of the result, but the type of
the argument indeed).
> Index: gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
> ===
> --- gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c (revision 218211)
> +++ gcc/fortran/trans-int
The following fixes invalid GENERIC (and also wrong-code?) generated
for various testcases involving min/maxloc intrinsics. It seems
like the wrong expression is used to discriminate REAL vs. INTEGER
types and thus REAL -Huge is offsetted by integer -1.
To quote a little more context, here is th
