Igor Zamyatin wrote:
I have now committed the attached version as Rev. 189700!
This seems to cause following fails at least on i686:
I have now committed as obvious (Rev. 189725) a patch to solve the issue
for assumed_rank_12.f90; I have also a patch for the other issue
Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de writes:
+ if (e-rank != class_ts.u.derived-components-as-rank)
+ class_array_data_assign (parmse-pre, ctree, parmse-expr,
+ TREE_TYPE (parmse-expr));
../../gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c: In function
Tobias Burnus wrote:
I will now regtest everything, read through the whole patch - your
part and mine, update the ChangeLog and commit it tomorrow.
I have now committed the attached version as Rev. 189700!
Thanks agai for the review!
Tobias
This seems to cause following fails at least
On x86_64 the same happens. Also I modified list of failing tests -
now it is correct
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
Tobias Burnus wrote:
I will now regtest everything, read through the whole patch - your
part and mine, update the ChangeLog and
On 15/07/2012 21:13, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hello,
attached is an updated version of the patch. Changes:
Updated version of comments:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.c b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
index c3644b6..959a57b 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
@@ -594,7 +594,7 @@
On 19/07/2012 17:55, Mikael Morin wrote:
I'm regression testing them, and if they work and are fine to you, let's
go with these patches.
They work with the following testsuite adjustment.
Mikael
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/assumed_type_3.f90
Mikael Morin wrote:
The four of them are not directly related to the assumed rank stuff, and
thus deserve a separate commit.
As you said:
* Unrelated bug fixes, found when writing the test cases and thus
included:
I assume they don't need testcases of their own, so that they are
approved as
Am 19.07.2012 17:55, schrieb Mikael Morin:
Maybe add: gcc_assert (from-rank != -1 || to-corank == 0);
Access to lower and upper bounds is OK, but again maybe we could just
assert here.
I will add the asserts – and undo the patch.
s/deferred rank/assumed rank/ ?
Of course. Well spotted!
Hello,
I somehow was reading this in the standard:
An assumed-rank variable name shall not appear in a designator or
expression except as an actual
argument corresponding to a dummy argument that is assumed-rank...
with ...except in... instead of ...except as
Some of my comments were plain
Hi Mikael, dear all,
On 07/05/2012 03:51 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
I think the assumed-rank = rank == -1 convention should be
documented in gfortran.h, at least for the gfc_array_spec::rank field.
Okay. (Done in my version, which is not yet attached.)
@@ -2990,6 +3008,15 @@ gfc_procedure_use
On 06/07/2012 23:13, Tobias Burnus wrote:
In case it's not, then everything is fine I guess, though I prefer
avoiding polluting the scalarizer with assumed rank stuff ;-).
It still will get worse, see above. Though, I wouldn't mind if you could
modify the scalarizer.
I don't see how I
Mikael Morin wrote:
I don't see how I could. The scalarizer's purpose is translating array
statements like foo(:,:) = bar(:,:), where the rank at least is supposed
known, so that we know how many nested loops we have to generate. If
the number of loops is known at runtime only, hem, I don't
Hi Mikael, hi all,
Mikael Morin wrote:
index f135af1..6c58a8e 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
@@ -8319,12 +8323,15 @@ gfc_walk_array_ref (gfc_ss * ss, gfc_expr *
expr, gfc_ref * ref)
break;
case AR_FULL:
- newss = gfc_get_array_ss (ss,
On 24.06.2012 17:34, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Tobias Burnus wrote:
To cleanup my local trees; I had the patch lingering there for a many
weeks. User visible, it only adds parsing support for dimension(..)
and a sorry message.
I have now updated the patch. Changes:
Hello,
some commen^Wbike
Tobias Burnus wrote:
To cleanup my local trees; I had the patch lingering there for a many
weeks. User visible, it only adds parsing support for dimension(..)
and a sorry message.
I have now updated the patch. Changes:
* No longer stops with a sorry message (except for scalars to
15 matches
Mail list logo
