https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640
--- Comment #31 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com <paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com> --- Hi Dominique, I had suspected that. Thanks for the confirmation! Cheers Paul On 10 June 2017 at 18:46, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640 > > --- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- >> Le 10 juin 2017 à 19:40, pault at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> >> a écrit : >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640 >> >> --- Comment #29 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >> Created attachment 41534 >> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41534&action=edit >> An unpolished patch for the bug >> >> Dear All, >> >> Since I am not going to have any time to fix the array descriptor reform on >> fortran-dev anytime soon, I have developed the attached. An extra 'span' >> field >> has been added to the array descriptor, which is used for non-OOP pointer >> operations. >> >> It needs a lot of cleaning up and thorough testing. It passes the regtests >> except for: goacc/kernels-alias-4.f95; and graphite/pr14741.f90 > > The failure of graphite/pr14741.f90 is not related to your patch. > > Dominique > >> I can see why the former might fail but the latter has me completely >> flummoxed. >> >> One of the most important parts of the cleanup will be to rework >> trans.c:gfc_build_array_ref and some of the calls to it.I should include >> class >> pointers in the scheme as well, just for completeness. >> >> Any feedback that you can give me would gratefully received. Let's at least >> finally implement this last missing F95 feature. >> >> Cheers >> >> Paul >> >> -- >> You are receiving this mail because: >> You are on the CC list for the bug. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are the assignee for the bug.
