illed
--
Summary: Memory leaks when reading logicals
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedB
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-30 18:05
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Bug number PR27360
>
> A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
> The mailing list url for the patch is
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 20:43
---
The problem seems to be return-by-reference (e.g. character) functions don't
mix well with DECL_IS_PURE. Testing a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22607
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 22:12
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The problem seems to be return-by-reference (e.g. character) functions don't
> mix well with DECL_IS_PURE. Testing a patch.
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 11:28
---
Subject: Bug 22607
Author: eedelman
Date: Wed Nov 9 11:27:56 2005
New Revision: 106683
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106683
Log:
fortran/
2005-11-09 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 21:24
---
Subject: Bug 22607
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Nov 10 21:24:12 2005
New Revision: 106751
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106751
Log:
fortran/
2005-11-10 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 21:50
---
Fixed on both 4.1 and 4.0
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 21:51
---
This bug and PR 22607, which was fixed recently, appears to be duplicates.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22607 ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 21:51
---
*** Bug 19766 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 12:18
---
Fixed on 4.1. Not yet fixed on 4.0, because it depends on PR 15326 which
hasn't been fixed for 4.0.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 12:40
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22146 ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 12:40
---
*** Bug 24966 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-23 17:48
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 13:26
---
I think this bug is caused by the fact that simplification of array slices
isn't implemented yet; from expr.c (simplify_const_ref):
switch (p->ref->type)
{
.
.
.
default:
/* TODO: Sim
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-25 15:09
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-25 15:11
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-25 15:13
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-25 15:37
---
Confirmed.
A few comments:
Since the subroutine foo isn't called, we can't expect any output. If,
however, we add a the line
call foo(a)
after the line
a(1:4) = 1
we still don't get any ou
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 21:19
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 21:27
---
Confirmed. Reminds a bit of PR 15809.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 21:33
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 21:44
---
Confirmed.
The F2003 (draft) standard says, in 7.4.4.1:
"C736 (R755) A subscript or stride in a foral l-triplet-spec shall not contain
a
reference to any index-name in the foral l-triplet-spec -list in
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 21:57
---
Confirmed. (Relevant section of the F2003 draft standard: 12.3.2.1.2).
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 22:13
---
With gfortran 4.2.0 20051128 I get an ICE for this code.
This slightly different code (but with basically the same error), however,
compiles and outputs 10, when we should get an error:
integer :: a
a=T1
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 22:27
---
I can reproduce this with gfortran 4.1.0 20051128, but gfortran 4.2.0 20051128
correctly gives an error:
erik:~$ gfortran huj.f90
In file huj.f90:6
CHARACTER(LEN=*) FUNCTION F1
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 22:36
---
This a duplicate of PR 24705, which was recently fixed on 4.2 and 4.0, but not
(yet?) on 4.1.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24705 ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 22:36
---
*** Bug 25081 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 11:21
---
Confirmed. Reminds a bit of PR 24705, except here we have an interface only.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 11:27
---
Confirmed. Reminds a bit of PR 24705.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 11:30
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 12:00
---
Reduced testcase:
SUBROUTINE s(n)
CHARACTER(LEN=n), EXTERNAL :: a
write(6,*) a(n)
END SUBROUTINE s
The problem, unless I'm missing something, is that the external function a
would need an explicit inte
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 12:06
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Reduced testcase:
>
> SUBROUTINE s(n)
> CHARACTER(LEN=n), EXTERNAL :: a
> write(6,*) a(n)
> END SUBROUTINE s
>
> The problem, unless I'm missing so
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 11:33
---
Currently gfortran crashes on this code, because of PR 22146. I'll leave this
PR (rather than marking it as a duplicate) as a reminder that, when we fix PR
22146, we need to check conformance of arguments as
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 12:32
---
Confirmed. ifort 8.1 -e95 says:
"The CALL statement is invoking an external function subprogram as a
subroutine. [S]
CALL S()
--^"
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 12:36
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 12:46
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 12:49
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 13:23
---
While not identical, this is so close to PR 25099 that I think we can consider
them duplicates.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25099 ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 13:23
---
*** Bug 25100 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25099
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 13:38
---
F2k draft standard, section 7.4.4.2.1 says: "The value m3 shall not be zero.",
where m3 is the stride in a FORALL triplet. Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 14:18
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> What broken here? Where are the details?
I wondered that as well for a while. The problem, IIUC is that the
case-selector
must be an initialization expression. I'm no
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 18:29
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> context, so I'm not sure what to think here ... I leave this as unconfirmed
> for now.
Ifort 8.1 reports the following error:
In a CASE statement, the case-value must be
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 22:06
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 13:05
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 19:28
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-06 18:03
---
Working on a patch.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-06 19:38
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Working on a patch.
Posted a pacth here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-12/msg00116.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18197
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 22:31
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 16:56
---
Subject: Bug 25292
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Dec 8 16:56:10 2005
New Revision: 108238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108238
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-08 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 17:00
---
Subject: Bug 25292
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Dec 8 17:00:26 2005
New Revision: 108239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108239
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-08 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 17:04
---
Subject: Bug 25292
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Dec 8 17:04:54 2005
New Revision: 108241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108241
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-08 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 18:08
---
Fixed on 4.0, 4.1 and mainline.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-10 20:30
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #9 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-15 00:47
---
Subject: Bug 18197
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Dec 15 00:47:13 2005
New Revision: 108555
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108555
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-14 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #10 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 18:54
---
Subject: Bug 18197
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Dec 16 18:54:33 2005
New Revision: 108667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108667
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-14 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #11 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-17 19:51
---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-17 19:55
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> looks very much related to PR 18197.
Indeed. Since patch for PR 18197 fixes this too I think we can call it a
duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18
--- Comment #12 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-17 19:55
---
*** Bug 25262 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 21:26
---
Working on a patch.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-21 11:58
---
Subject: Bug 25423
Author: eedelman
Date: Wed Dec 21 11:58:09 2005
New Revision: 108902
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108902
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-21 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-21 12:08
---
Subject: Bug 25423
Author: eedelman
Date: Wed Dec 21 12:07:58 2005
New Revision: 108903
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108903
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-21 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-21 12:12
---
Subject: Bug 25423
Author: eedelman
Date: Wed Dec 21 12:12:52 2005
New Revision: 108904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108904
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-21 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-21 16:17
---
Fixed on trunk, 4.1 and 4.0
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-22 19:49
---
With GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.2.0 20051221 it works (I get a lot of 'undefined
reference' messages, but no ICE:s). But with 20051222 I get the same ICE
message that Martin gets. So it seems the p
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-23 17:58
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> So it seems the problem was introduced within the last 24 hours.
To be a bit more precise: works with revision 108902, ICE:s with revision
108943.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-26 21:20
---
Here's a reduced testcase:
module ModelParams
implicit none
type ReionizationParams
real :: fraction
end type ReionizationParams
type CAMBp
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-27 19:26
---
Confirmed.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-27 19:41
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created an attachment (id=10467)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10467&action=view) [edit]
> m_mb_control.mod
>
> Fortran module needed by matie
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-27 21:31
---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> It seems to me that the .mod-file is corrupted. Could you send the source
> code
> of the module too, instead of just the .mod file?
>
Never mind. I managed
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-27 21:53
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Never mind. I managed to reduce it to something that doesn't depend on any
> modules.
The reduced testcase is here:
SUBROUTINE MATIERE()
REAL :: XSNAK(2)
XS
--- Comment #10 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-27 22:09
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Fixed on 4.1. Not yet fixed on 4.0, because it depends on PR 15326 which
> hasn't been fixed for 4.0.
PR 15326 will not be fixed for 4.0, I presume, so neither will t
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:01
---
Working on a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25396
--- Comment #8 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:52
---
It seems my patch fixed pure by-reference functions only for internal
functions. Pure by-ref. module functions still doesn't work:
erik:/home/gcc/head/test$ cat pure_byref_3.f90
module huj_mod
contains
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 20:57
---
I think this simple one-liner fixes the bug:
Index: interface.c
===
--- interface.c (revision 109139)
+++ interface.c (working copy)
@@ -1718,6
--- Comment #9 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-29 22:35
---
Patch posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-12/msg00511.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22607
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 15:02
---
Subject: Bug 25396
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:02:44 2005
New Revision: 109171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109171
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-30 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #10 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 15:02
---
Subject: Bug 22607
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:02:44 2005
New Revision: 109171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109171
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-30 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 15:07
---
Subject: Bug 25396
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:07:48 2005
New Revision: 109172
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109172
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-30 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #11 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 15:07
---
Subject: Bug 22607
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:07:48 2005
New Revision: 109172
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109172
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-30 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #12 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 15:11
---
Subject: Bug 22607
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:11:15 2005
New Revision: 109173
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109173
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-30 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 15:11
---
Subject: Bug 25396
Author: eedelman
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:11:15 2005
New Revision: 109173
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109173
Log:
fortran/
2005-12-30 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #13 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 15:16
---
Now it should be fixed for all cases. Re-closing.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-30 22:44
---
The testcase compiles without error messages in 4.2.0 20051230 (I haven't tried
with 4.1 or 4.0 yet). However, if I try to use IntToChar2 from another program
unit, I get another error, so there's s
at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25628
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-01 19:27
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Is this really a bug, changing the subroutine to:
> subroutine bar()
> character(len=10) :: str
> write (str, *) 0
> end subroutine bar
>
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 20:41
---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00079.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23675
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 00:22
---
Subject: Bug 23675
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Jan 5 00:22:39 2006
New Revision: 109368
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109368
Log:
2006-01-05 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 21:10
---
Subject: Bug 23675
Author: eedelman
Date: Thu Jan 5 21:10:05 2006
New Revision: 109389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109389
Log:
fortran/
2006-01-05 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-05 21:17
---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline,
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25693
--- Comment #2 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 00:14
---
Working on a patch.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 17:53
---
Subject: Bug 25093
Author: eedelman
Date: Sun Jan 8 17:52:57 2006
New Revision: 109474
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109474
Log:
fortran/
2005-01-08 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #4 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 16:19
---
Subject: Bug 25093
Author: eedelman
Date: Mon Jan 9 16:19:22 2006
New Revision: 109500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109500
Log:
fortran/
2005-01-09 Erik Edelmann <[EMAI
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 16:21
---
Fixed on 4.1 and mainline.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 00:03
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The limit was rose but we should be able to do better.
Indeed. But the problem is not trivial. For a case like above, where the
array is a variable, we can translate it to
(prog
--- Comment #1 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 12:32
---
According to the mail http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-01/msg00123.html, it
fails on x86-64 and SPARC64 too. I don't see the error on Linux/x86.
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 00:12
---
Created an attachment (id=10639)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10639&action=view)
Patch to fix the bug.
Attached a patch that fixes the problem on x86 and a cross-compiler to spar
--- Comment #10 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 15:38
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > Attached a patch that fixes the problem on x86 and a cross-compiler to
> > sparc64. I intend to contemplate it a bit further before I post it to the
> > list f
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
