--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 16:59 ---
Subject: Bug 34854
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 20 16:58:15 2008
New Revision: 131679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131679
Log:
2008-01-20 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 16:59 ---
Subject: Bug 34784
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 20 16:58:15 2008
New Revision: 131679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131679
Log:
2008-01-20 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 05:40 ---
Confirmed
This is the reduced version
! { dg-do run }
module reduction5
intrinsic min, max
end module reduction5
program reduction_5_regression
call test2
contains
subroutine test2
use reduction5, min
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34897
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 06:02 ---
Subject: Bug 34896
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jan 22 06:01:54 2008
New Revision: 131712
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131712
Log:
2008-01-22 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 06:08 ---
I think that you will find that has gone, as promised.
Thanks
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 09:03 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Changing summary to better reflect what is wrong.
Jerry,
Jerry,
I believe this to be something missing in the library.
Other compilers (G95 and DEC are what I can lay hands on right
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 12:28 ---
Dick,
You seem to have an unerring aim at our wellweaker points. Thanks for
coming in with these bugs, they are really helping.
This fellow comes about because there just is no provision for writing a
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 17:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=14998)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14998&action=view)
A fix for this PR
As I suspected, the attached does the trick. It is regtesting right now and I
want to
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 21:22 ---
Subject: Bug 34875
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jan 22 21:22:13 2008
New Revision: 131742
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131742
Log:
2008-01-22 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 22:22 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 06:45 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> we just bail out right now when we need to actually do something.
Yes, that's what I thought. In the circumstance where this block "exists", ie.
there is one beyond it,
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 06:48 ---
I do not see how to fix this one at the moment - Tobias' suggestion and other
attempts meet with a variety of rejections. I'll come back to it but must have
a final stab at PR34429 before we time out on
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 08:54 ---
Having slept on it, I know where the problem is - old_locus in decode_statement
points to the whitespace after a statement label. In consequence, if the label
is deleted, it is not parsed again.
A fix is regtesting
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 08:41 ---
Subject: Bug 34872
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jan 24 08:40:38 2008
New Revision: 131777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131777
Log:
2008-01-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 08:43 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 15:12 ---
Joost,
When did this last work?
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34946
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 15:55 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > When did this last work?
> The reduced test case is compiled by 4.2.2, but not by 4.3.0 20071125
> (experimental).
Dominique,
What is the date on the 4.2.2?
Paul
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 19:41 ---
I'm getting there...
Something is going wrong in setting the loop start value (as is obvious from
the gcc_assert:)) that is fixed by interchanging the order of expressions in
the mask.
Thusly:
input_set
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:49 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Cleaned up patch:
Jerry,
I found the equivalent:
if (n < loop->temp_dim && !integer_zerop (loop->from[n]))
loop->from[n] = gfc_index_zero_node;
T
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:58 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Probable patch posted in 31610
>
See my remark there -> if we can understand it, I would feel reassured but, if
not, lets go with your version of the patch and keep this PR o
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 13:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=15024)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15024&action=view) [edit]
> Test files (tar.gz). Use "make"
Uggghhh!
If th
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 10:34 ---
I note that the pigeon carrying my reply to #3 got lost; my subsequent message
must therefore be a bit mysterious.
Changing the name of the symtree of an unwanted symbol from 'foo' to
'hidden.foo
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 22:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=15033)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15033&action=view)
A patch for this regression
I have just put this on to bootstrap and regtest whilst I sleep. Since it
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-29 11:24 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Note the comment in trans-expr.c(gfc_map_intrinsic_function) :
case GFC_ISYM_LBOUND:
case GFC_ISYM_UBOUND:
/* TODO These implementations of lbound and ubound do not limit if
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 06:56 ---
Subject: Bug 34975
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jan 30 06:56:10 2008
New Revision: 131956
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131956
Log:
2008-01-30 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 06:56 ---
Subject: Bug 34429
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jan 30 06:56:10 2008
New Revision: 131956
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131956
Log:
2008-01-30 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 07:03 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 07:02 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 22:42 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Problem seems to be in expr.c (gfc_check_assign):2690. If the containing
> namespace is a function, the appropriate tests are skipped.
This is regtesting right now:
Index: gcc/f
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 08:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Reply to comment two:
>
> There is front-endery code to do "cond ? a : b" in the handling of missing
> optional dummy arguments. You can borrow from that.
>
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 22:21 ---
Subject: Bug 34910
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jan 31 22:20:47 2008
New Revision: 131985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131985
Log:
2008-01-31 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 22:23 ---
Fixed on trunk. Thanks for the hint, Daniel!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 22:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=15071)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15071&action=view)
A fix for the PR
This is regtesting as I write. It fixes the first three PRs but not that of
comment
--- Comment #27 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 06:00 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> Created an attachment (id=15071)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15071&action=view) [edit]
> A fix for the PR
>
> This is regtesting as I write.
--- Comment #31 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 11:30 ---
Subject: Bug 32760
Author: pault
Date: Sun Feb 3 11:29:27 2008
New Revision: 132078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132078
Log:
2008-02-03 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #32 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 11:32 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 12:55 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I had the impression that the problem is the array itself and not only
> ubound/lbound.
Quite right, Tobias!
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34945
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 14:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=15085)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15085&action=view)
Patch and testcase for this PR
This one is regtesting right now.
Cheers
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 09:36 ---
I have just posted a patch, so I had better take the PR on!
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-02/msg00027.html
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 11:17 ---
Subject: Bug 32315
Author: pault
Date: Tue Feb 5 11:16:33 2008
New Revision: 132113
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132113
Log:
2008-02-05 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 12:57 ---
I just noticed that this is due to incorrect or non-existent type/kind checking
in the constructor 'mytype'. With -fdefault-integer-8, yy has KIND=8, whereas
the corresponding component has KIND=4, as gi
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 13:05 ---
I've knocked back it's priority but have assigned it to myself to compensate.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 13:06 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 13:37 ---
Fixed on trunk - thanks, Dick!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 13:34 ---
Subject: Bug 34945
Author: pault
Date: Tue Feb 5 13:33:35 2008
New Revision: 132121
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132121
Log:
2008-02-05 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 08:16 ---
Thanks to one and all for the quick report and the equally quick fix. As I
said in mail to the list, for the umpteenth time, I have been caught by
Cygwin's ability to disappear some segfaults. I do apologise an
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 08:33 ---
This bug is caused by gfc_conv_intrinsic_conversion calling
gfc_conv_intrinsic_function_args, which builds a temporary without checking if
the allocatable array 'yy' has been allocated or not.
This can b
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 15:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=15116)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15116&action=view)
A tentative patch for the PR
This is regtesting but all the allocatable component tests are OK.
Could s
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 22:04 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Regtested without regression on ppc/intel-darwin9, 32 and 64 bit modes.
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
Dominique and Daniel,
You mean that one-liner did it That represents
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-09 06:14 ---
(In reply to comment #2
FX,
I think that your logic is impeccable - I am sure that is the correct fix.
Cheers
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35009
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-11 17:48 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
OK I have a fix, up to a wrinkle that raises a standard question:
alloc_comp_constructor.f90 now compiles and runs OK but aborts because the
bounds are changed by the implicit conversion
--- Comment #147 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 18:54 ---
(In reply to comment #146)
> (In reply to comment #145)
> > current gfortran trunk seems to fail on CVS sources of CP2K with:
> PR34946
Joost - can this be closed again?
Cheers
Paul
--
http:/
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 12:12 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
It is essential to fix the memory leaks - that after all is the purpose behind
allocatable components. I´ll see if I can understand what is happening.
Cheers
Paul
--
http
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 12:09 ---
I have a regtested patch for this but cannot post it until Saturday, when I am
back from vacation.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 12:44 ---
Have changed the keyword to represent comment #6
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 07:59 ---
> In the meantime, I am thinking through a different approach for aio that
> avoids
> the issue here.
>
Yes it would - use gfc_conv_expr_descriptor to convert the expression and pass
the resulting arra
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-05 21:43 ---
Simon and Tobias,
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thanks for the report. I can reproduce the problem with 4.2.3, however, it
> seems to be fixed in GCC/gfortran 4.3.0rc2 (and 4.4.0) - and as Daniel noted
> it
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-05 22:05 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Found the following on the J3 Fortran list. I think the program below is
> invalid for the reasons given by Bill Long, but it has not finally decided yet
> (on J3). (The questio
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-08 15:11 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Paul, do you have an idea?
>
> The ICE happens when reading the .mod for p->u.wsym.sym->name == "i" in
> free_pi_tree:
> if (p->fixup != NULL)
>
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-08 20:34 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> Oddly, reverting my patch for 32103 by hand does not get rid of the fault:) I
> am beginning to think that we need fixups for the common block references
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-09 19:39 ---
Subject: Bug 35474
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 9 19:38:51 2008
New Revision: 133063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133063
Log:
2008-03-09 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 13:19 ---
Subject: Bug 35474
Author: pault
Date: Fri Mar 14 13:18:49 2008
New Revision: 133214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133214
Log:
2008-03-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 13:20 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35474
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 13:24 ---
Jacques,
Now that 4.3 is out of the door, I have no excuse. It's in the queue behind
completing my move to Barcelona, memory leaks in allocatable components + some
associated bugs and adding procedure poi
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 13:21 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:36 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed as rejecting valid code, reduced testcase is:
This fixes it and is regtesting as I write.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remo
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed as rejecting valid code, reduced testcase is:
This fixes it and is regtesting as I write.
Paul(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Confirmed as rej
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:40 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > - openf95 and sunf95 reject it
> > - ifort, gfortran, NAG f95, and g95 accept it
> > Bill Long writes that he tested two non-Sun compilers,
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-16 07:15 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> You r 'this' is better than my 'Think' Passed regression testing here on
> x86-64.
>
Jerry,
I did not see that you were working on it - sorry that I trampled o
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-16 19:15 ---
Subject: Bug 35470
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 16 19:14:17 2008
New Revision: 133279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133279
Log:
2008-03-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-16 19:15 ---
Fixed on trunk
Thanks for the report
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-21 08:02 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: ICE in fold_const.c (fold_convert) when reordering USE
> statements
>
> On 4 Sep 2007 19:03:39 -, ubizjak at gmail dot com
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-21 08:05 ---
I'll take this on as relief from memory leaks
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-21 20:35 ---
FX,
You'll be glad to know that your memory leak patch reports:
!! Memory deallocation error in the code generated by the GNU Fortran compiler.
!! Please report this issue to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Ev
trunk
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35673
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 09:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Add keywords
>
Walter,
This is permitted in F2003 so you have to apply the F95 standard to extract the
message out of gfortran:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] svn]# /irun/bin/gfortran -std=f95
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-24 19:12 ---
Subject: Bug 33295
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 24 19:11:24 2008
New Revision: 133488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133488
Log:
2008-03-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-24 19:12 ---
Subject: Bug 34813
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 24 19:11:24 2008
New Revision: 133488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133488
Log:
2008-03-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-24 21:11 ---
Subject: Bug 33295
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 24 21:10:36 2008
New Revision: 133490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133490
Log:
2008-03-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-24 21:11 ---
Subject: Bug 34813
Author: pault
Date: Mon Mar 24 21:10:36 2008
New Revision: 133490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133490
Log:
2008-03-24 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-25 05:34 ---
Fixed on trumk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-25 05:34 ---
Fixed on trumk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-25 05:42 ---
Not only did the TODO disappear but the problem SEEMs to have done so too. The
last attempt at a fix was pretty all embracing and has ensured that the
scalarizer is always getting a string expression to work with
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-25 20:45 ---
g95 correctly gives:
In file pr35680.f90:5
integer foo(size(transfer(x, [1])))
1
Error: Variable 'x' cannot appear in restricted expression at (1)
Lahey gives:
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 06:22 ---
Reddduced testscase
SUBROUTINE CG0028 (TDA1L, N)
TYPE UNSEQ
CHARACTER(1):: C
END TYPE UNSEQ
integer :: N
TYPE(UNSEQ) TDA1L(:)
TDA1L(:)%C = TDA1L(1:N)%C
END SUBROUTINE
I do not have a gcc
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 06:34 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Reddduced testscase
>
> SUBROUTINE CG0028 (TDA1L, N)
TYPE UNSEQ
CHARACTER(2):: C
END TYPE UNSEQ
Changing to CHARACTER (LEN /= 1) "fixes" the p
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 21:38 ---
> If I would hazard a guess, something is going wrong in
> trans-expr.c(gfc_trans_string_copy), where LEN=1 is treated separately.
Yes, this is correct. In this particular case, we have:
lhs =&
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 22:20 ---
This one is relatively easy:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (revision 133278)
--- gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-28 08:33 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 1) If I am not mistaken, the first change is within a commented block (look at
> the last line in the diff.:
> ' } */')
Yes, indeed - the comment has been made
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 06:38 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirm. There seems to be a temporary missing.
>
> Paul, you have fixed PR 31994, do you have an idea here?
Tobias,
I'll put my thinking cap on. Our conjg(tranpose()) tric
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 07:27 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Hah! It's still worse than I thought. Not only is a temporary not made but
the scalarizer is being blown out of the water by the likes of:
program main
implicit none
complex, dime
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:11 ---
Subject: Bug 35698
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:11:02 2008
New Revision: 133710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133710
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:11 ---
Subject: Bug 35702
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:11:02 2008
New Revision: 133710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133710
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:18 ---
Subject: Bug 35698
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:17:36 2008
New Revision: 133711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133711
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:18 ---
Subject: Bug 35702
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:17:36 2008
New Revision: 133711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133711
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:19 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:20 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:23 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I have a regtested patch for this but cannot post it until Saturday, when I am
> back from vacation.
>
> Paul
This has been delayed by the discovery of memory leaks in a n
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 12:40 ---
This one should be straightforward, if lengthy to correct:
gfc_trans_where_2 is completely correct, as can be verified by doubling up the
line making the assignment in the WHERE block. ie:
WHERE (LDA
1501 - 1600 of 3045 matches
Mail list logo
