http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-05-10
09:41:08 UTC ---
Here's something for formatted writes; consider the write-many.f (from some
other PR, I'm too lazy to check which now)
program main
open(10,status='SCRATCH')
a = 0.3858204
do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-10-23
13:03:08 UTC ---
I got sidetracked by other more serious bugs. I am not even sure I have the
draft patch any more, but I will look for it. Not too sure about 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig 2010-10-23
10:02:46 UTC ---
Hi Jerry,
> An update. I have a patch developing.
> The patch is a bit intrusive, especially in namelist areas, so may be best for
> 4.6 at this stage. (assuming I get it to work
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 15:59
---
An update. I have a patch developing. Conceptually, it requires handling of
separators in list_read.c to be moved to the beginning of each invocation of
list_formatted_read_scalar. This avoids trying to eat_sp
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 06:40
---
Assigning to myself.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
A
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 06:39
---
I am reopening this bug. I stumbled upon it searching testcases from Manfred,
Running the test case here with 4.5 has not substantially improved. Time to
put on my thinking cap.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-22 05:34
---
I think this is then a dup of 37754. Janne is working some ideas and these are
similar to my thoughts. This fix here is in a high bug domain so we think we
should hold for 4.5, get it resolved and tested, then p
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 13:54 ---
I do not believe that it is a regression, so I have removed that from the
summary.
The profiling that you have done tells a story - I think that it is fairly
clear where the problem lies; not in making a spurious copy
