https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40598
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 20:58
---
Paul, I'm always unsure with these kind of things; PR31009 and PR31016 may, or
may not, be more of the same ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40598
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 12:57 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > It even works!
>
> Paul, any news here? This looks very useful!
> See also PR41137.
>
Daniel,
I totally forgot about this one. I had a first tinker since c
--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 21:02
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> It even works!
Paul, any news here? This looks very useful!
See also PR41137.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 11:02 ---
Richard,
It even works!
Thanks again
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 10:51 ---
Richard,
> to set the upper bound correctly you have to build a new array type instead
> of re-using TREE_TYPE (dest). The types TYPE_DOMAIN will specify the size
> of the slice. Thus,
>
> slice_type = build_arra
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 09:43 ---
tmp = build4 (ARRAY_RANGE_REF, TREE_TYPE (dest), dest,
build_int_cst (gfc_array_index_type, 3),
NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
to set the upper bound correctly you have to build a new
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 08:23 ---
I might as well confirm it:-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 07:51 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Here, I do not get any segfault/problem with valgrind (for gfortran and a.out).
> tmp = build4 (ARRAY_RANGE_REF, TREE_TYPE (dest), dest,
> build_int_cst (gfc_array_index
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 12:57 ---
Modifying trans-expr (gfc_trans_zero_assign) to:
tmp = build4 (ARRAY_RANGE_REF, TREE_TYPE (dest), dest,
build_int_cst (gfc_array_index_type, 3),
NULL_TREE, NULL_TREE);
/* If
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 09:54 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I guess for zeroing you want memset, not memcpy. Note that in most of the
***blush*** - yes, you are right, of course!
> cases you should be able to use direct assignments from {} (to zero
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 09:46 ---
array(:,1) = 0
would then become
ARRAY_RANGE_REF = { }
and
array(:,1) = [1,2,3]
would then become
ARRAY_RANGE_REF = { 1,2,3 }
If I recall correctly, using memcopy/memset causes alias analysis problems as
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 09:39 ---
I guess for zeroing you want memset, not memcpy. Note that in most of the
cases you should be able to use direct assignments from {} (to zero) or
the source. For selecting continuous ranges of an array you can use
13 matches
Mail list logo
