https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11)
> A big part is fixed now.
>
> Do people think that the case of comment#8 is worth fixing?
At least it's worth having one PR open for it IMO.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jul 21 13:44:03 2013
New Revision: 201094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-07-21 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/56937
* dependency.c (gfc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-30
12:35:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > Currently, we do not support assigning values to variables
> > and then later using the values for dependency analysis.
> > ...
Well, as I wrote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-04-30
12:15:00 UTC ---
> Currently, we do not support assigning values to variables
> and then later using the values for dependency analysis.
> ...
What about
integer :: r(10)
r = [(i+1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin 2013-04-13
10:32:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> tmp(2) = r(1) + 0.25 ! r(1:4) == 0
> tmp(2) = r(2) + 0.25
> tmp(3) = r(3) + 0.25
> tmp(2) = r(4) + 0.25
> r(2) = tmp(2) ! = 0.25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin 2013-04-13
10:26:05 UTC ---
The following variant is valid, and gives 1.0 as expected.
But it doesn't avoid the temporary either.
real :: r(4), p(4)
integer :: idx(4)
p = [0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25]
idx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-04-12
20:56:36 UTC ---
Is the following code valid?
integer :: i, idx(4), r(4), p(4)
p = [1,2,3,4]
idx = [2,2,2,2]
r = 0
r(idx) = p
print *, sum(r)
r = 0
do i = 1, 4
r(idx(i)) = p(i)
14 matches
Mail list logo
