--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-03 05:33 ---
Subject: Bug 42104
Author: pault
Date: Thu Dec 3 05:32:58 2009
New Revision: 154935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154935
Log:
2009-12-03 Paul Thomas
Janus Weil
PR f
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 07:57 ---
Many thanks for the report.
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 06:57 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I will take it that this is an OK from you.
Sure thing. Thanks for committing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42104
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 06:43 ---
Subject: Bug 42104
Author: pault
Date: Fri Nov 20 06:43:13 2009
New Revision: 154358
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154358
Log:
2009-11-20 Paul Thomas
Janus Weil
PR fo
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 04:59 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Janus,
That version is a very good suggestion - thanks. I am set up to apply the
patch, so, although component procedure pointers is one of your
specialisations, I can efficiently get on and
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 21:59 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
> ===
> --- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c(revision 154327)
> +++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c(wo
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 21:09 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The fix is to make use of the fact a proc_pointer component call is already
> detected and can be used to suppress the internal_pack. Thusly:
>
> Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
> =
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 13:25 ---
Martien,
Thank you very much for this report.
I have assigned it to myself and have a non-regtested fix:
As remarked by Janus, the problem is with the array argument. The code
produced for the proc_pointer call is
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 11:57 ---
Let's have a look at the dump for the test case in comment #2.
The call to 'func' is translated to:
real(kind=4) D.1568;
struct array1_real(kind=4) parm.7;
static real(kind=4) A.6[2] = {1.000149
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 10:45 ---
Confirmed.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
10 matches
Mail list logo
