http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-03-07 10:07:00 UTC ---
I think the -std=f95 issue mentioned in comment #5 is pr41165.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas 2011-03-06 20:15:42
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 6 20:15:38 2011
New Revision: 170720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170720
Log:
2011-03-06 Paul Thomas
Jerry DeLisle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas 2011-03-06 16:19:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Jerry,
Based in this and comment #11, I noted that the place where this was failing
was iterator-free EXPR_ARRAYs. I then leapt to the following patch, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-03-06
15:16:46 UTC ---
Passes:
case EXPR_ARRAY:
/* return 1 here and it works. */
/* gfc_constant_ac (e); */
return 1;
Fails:
case EXPR_ARRAY:
/* return 1 here and it works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-03-06
14:59:05 UTC ---
Info: Does not fix it but why this behavior with the test case?
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c(revision 170543)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-03-05
19:17:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> This is suspicious. I don't see it in the ChangeLog and is probably a merge
> artifact.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/fortran/arith.c?r1=155179
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-02
13:22:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > The regression appeared between revisions 158105 and 159105.
>
> In the above revision range r158253 looks by far the mos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas 2011-03-01 12:45:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > -std=f95 no longer generates the error that it should:
> >logical, parameter :: buf(3) = [(any(sc(i) ==nc), i = 1, 3)]
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||franke.daniel at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-03-01
10:39:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> -std=f95 no longer generates the error that it should:
>logical, parameter :: buf(3) = [(any(sc(i) ==nc), i = 1, 3)]
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-01
10:00:01 UTC ---
The regression appeared between revisions 158105 and 159105.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas 2011-02-26 11:09:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
It appears to be ANY that is not simplified.
program Cindex
integer,parameter :: sc(3) = [10,12,17], nc(2) = [10,17]
logical,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-23
09:04:03 UTC ---
The problem is that for
integer,parameter :: C_INDEX(8) = unpack( &
vector = [(i,i=1,size(SENSOR_CHANNEL))], &
mask = [(any(SENSOR_CHANNEL(i) == NLTE_CHANNEL), &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
17 matches
Mail list logo
