[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2009-04-06 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-06 10:52 --- Fixed on trunk. I am prepared to backport but the mood appears to be against it. Thanks for the report. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2009-04-05 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-06 05:26 --- Subject: Bug 36091 Author: pault Date: Mon Apr 6 05:25:46 2009 New Revision: 145581 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145581 Log: 2009-04-06 Paul Thomas PR fortran/36091 * tra

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2009-03-17 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-17 08:31 --- This fixes the PR: Index: gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c === --- gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c(revision 144197) +++ gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c(working copy) @

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2008-10-27 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-27 19:24 --- For the record, the patch in comment #1 conflicts with the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-10/msg00256.html. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36091

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2008-10-23 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-23 20:34 --- > As a side note I'm really impressed by how fast you found a not-working > case to my slowly and laboriously prepared code. Don't worry, it is always much easier to find (others') bugs than to fix them. The problem

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2008-10-23 Thread mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr
--- Comment #4 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2008-10-23 14:37 --- (In reply to comment #3) > I am not 100% sure that the following is due to the patch in comment #1, There is already something wrong on trunk, but I agree that the patch makes it worse. As a side note I'm really

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2008-10-22 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-10-22 14:24 --- I am not 100% sure that the following is due to the patch in comment #1, but the following code segfaults (at the write) after having applied it: integer :: i(1) = 1 integer :: foo(3) foo = 17 print *, i, foo

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2008-10-22 Thread mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr
--- Comment #2 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2008-10-22 12:52 --- I forgot to say that it is regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36091

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2008-10-22 Thread mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr
--- Comment #1 from mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr 2008-10-22 12:49 --- Created an attachment (id=16527) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16527&action=view) patch solving the problem This patch keeps the original array descriptor from gfc_conv_subref_array_arg to g

[Bug fortran/36091] false positive in bounds checking with forall

2008-08-08 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
-- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail