https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
Bug 35339 depends on bug 80945, which changed state.
Bug 80945 Summary: Invalid code with allocatable character array in READ/WRITE
statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80945
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #14)
> Fixed (finally).
>
> Closing.
Thanks Thomas!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 19 18:21:45 2018
New Revision: 257814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-19 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/35339
* fronten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
--- Comment #12 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Author: koenigni
Date: Mon Jun 5 12:35:11 2017
New Revision: 248877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-05 Nicolas Koenig
PR fortran/35339
* fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Manfred Schwarb from comment #10)
> As I understand this patch applies to read and write.
> How does this optimization behave regarding my pet issue (short array reads)?
>
> I.e.
> progra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
Manfred Schwarb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manfred99 at gmx dot ch
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41420|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
> Created attachment 41420 [details]
> Early patch for simplifying impl do loops - 2
>
> Sorry, wrong patch _and_ wrong testcase... Still fails for mysterious
> r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41419|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35339
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-13 05:19
---
I have a method figured out for async I/O that will handle things as they are
now, However, it would greatly improve the situation if we fix this implied do
loop business.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org c
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 07:59 ---
> In the meantime, I am thinking through a different approach for aio that
> avoids
> the issue here.
>
Yes it would - use gfc_conv_expr_descriptor to convert the expression and pass
the resulting array descriptor.
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-01 16:22
---
OK, I see your point. Would it be possible to create a hidden iterator
function that could be called internally by the I/O library to return the index
into the array?
In the meantime, I am thinking through a dif
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 10:00
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> real, dimension(10) :: a
> write(10,'(10f8.3)') a
> write(10,'(10f8.3)') (a(i), i=1,10)
The problem is, this isn't possible in the most generic case:
write(10,'(10f8.3)') (a(i**-2*i+
17 matches
Mail list logo
