--- Comment #9 from segalemb at usp dot br 2005-10-07 13:57 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I tried this simple test case:
module param
double precision mutdefc(8,5,7)
data mutdefc(1,1,1) /0.d0/
* mutdefc(1,1,2) /0.d0/
end module param
and the c
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29 22:10
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Note I reduced it using delta so the all of my reduced tescase came exactly
from the file and nothing
> else.
This is not true. Even if the constants appearing in the data statemen
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
21:53 ---
Note I reduced it using delta so the all of my reduced tescase came exactly
from the file and nothing
else.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29 21:51
---
Can you try to isolate a shorter testcase? It's really difficult to see what's
happening in this large file.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From segalemb at usp dot br 2005-09-23 19:27
---
Subject: Re: failure in gcc
I and another person searched carrefully the source code and there
is no repeated data commands.
Sergio
Citando pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> --
--- Additional Comments From segalemb at usp dot br 2005-09-23 19:12
---
Subject: Re: failure in gcc
I and another person searched carrefully the source code and there
is no repeated data commands.
Sergio
Citando pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> -
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
19:29 ---
Reduced testcase:
module param
double precision mutdefc(8,5,7)
data mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.d0/
* mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.d0/
end module param
But this is really a dup of bug 17
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14
18:54 ---
Can you attach module.F?
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
