Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40967
--- Comment #2 from brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com 2009-08-05
18:46 ---
My interpretation of that rule is that this is a legal testcase as long as ub
is even at runtime. If ub is odd, then the behavior is undefined.
Anyway - that is a subject for bug 39495. What I'm t
--- Comment #3 from brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com 2009-08-12
21:29 ---
It doesn't look like the problem is confined to Intel64 code. Here's the IPF
assembly for the GOMP_loop_dynamic_start call:
addp4 r15 = r14, r0
adds r14 = -24, r37
mov r39 = r16
;;
mov r40 = r15
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39354
--- Comment #6 from brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com 2009-03-02
22:47 ---
See 39354.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34020
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39495
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39591
/ indirects operands
on IPF
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: brian dot e dot bl
--- Comment #2 from brian dot e dot bliss at intel dot com 2007-11-09
00:06 ---
Subject: RE: Bogus codegen for openmp atomics w/ indirects operands on IPF
The C example looks correct (but you have to use the += operator to get
a legal example, which might have affected things
