--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 21:38 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38033
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 21:37 ---
Subject: Bug 38033
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 24 21:36:05 2008
New Revision: 142174
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142174
Log:
2008-11-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 18:39 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 18:04 ---
Subject: Bug 38033
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 14 18:03:05 2008
New Revision: 141861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141861
Log:
2008-10-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I tried that and generated a load of regressions.
Fine. Let's keep it as is then.
>
> Thanks
Thanks to you.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38033
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 11:16 ---
Mikael,
(In reply to comment #4)
> Maybe we can drop gfc_conv_section_upper_bound completely.
> It looks redundant with how info->end[n] is calculated in
> gfc_conv_section_startstride.
>
I tried that and generate
--- Comment #4 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-13 19:05 ---
Maybe we can drop gfc_conv_section_upper_bound completely.
It looks redundant with how info->end[n] is calculated in
gfc_conv_section_startstride.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38033
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-13 15:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=16662)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16662&action=view)
Patch for PR
This is not regtested yet but it fixes the testcase completely. Watch this
space!
Paul
--
htt
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-07 13:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> Removes the _gfortran_size0 calls from the loop but I have not yet located the
> doubling up of calls here:
>
> D.1551 = temp.offset;
> D.1552 = &a;
>
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-06 21:09 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (revision 141655)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (working c
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
11 matches
Mail list logo
