On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:07:04AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 07:58:22PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > thanks for your explanations.
> >
> > The patch is OK for trunk. Thanks a lot!
> >
>
> Upon even further reading, the code segment with temp might
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 07:58:22PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> thanks for your explanations.
>
> The patch is OK for trunk. Thanks a lot!
>
Upon even further reading, the code segment with temp might
be needed. If one looks in compute_dot_product(), one finds
result =
Hi Steve,
thanks for your explanations.
The patch is OK for trunk. Thanks a lot!
Regards
Thomas
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 07:06:10AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:37:54AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> > Second, why do you remove this
> >
> > > - temp.value.op.op = INTRINSIC_NONE;
> > > - temp.value.op.op1 = vector_a;
> > > - temp.value.op.op2 = vector_b;
> > >
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:37:54AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> First, why is
>
> > @@ -2253,22 +2253,19 @@ gfc_simplify_dim (gfc_expr *x, gfc_expr *y)
> > gfc_expr*
> > gfc_simplify_dot_product (gfc_expr *vector_a, gfc_expr *vector_b)
> > {
> > + /* If vector_a is a zero-sized array, the
Hi Steve,
I have a couple of questions before I have to hurry off to work:
First, why is
@@ -2253,22 +2253,19 @@ gfc_simplify_dim (gfc_expr *x, gfc_expr *y)
gfc_expr*
gfc_simplify_dot_product (gfc_expr *vector_a, gfc_expr *vector_b)
{
+ /* If vector_a is a zero-sized array, the result
All,
The attach patch fixes a regression with dot_product and
zero-sized arrays. I bootstrapped and regression tested
the patch on x86_64-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
2018-01-23 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83998
* simplify.c (gfc_simplify_dot_product): Deal