--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 13:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=21221)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21221&action=view)
Fix for the PR
Please note that this patch contains part of Janus' clean-up of vtabs diff.
Thi
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 17:35 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Is this now fixed on trunk? We had to deal with the TBAA problem with the
arrival of mem-ref2.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43986
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 07:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This fixes it and regtests.
> > + if (array->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE && array->expr_type !=
> > EXPR_FUNCTION)
>
>
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 16:16 ---
Subject: Bug 44353
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 18 16:15:43 2010
New Revision: 162286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162286
Log:
2010-07-18 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 05:05 ---
Subject: Bug 44353
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 19 05:05:23 2010
New Revision: 162294
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162294
Log:
2010-07-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 18:49 ---
Subject: Bug 42385
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 19 18:48:44 2010
New Revision: 162313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162313
Log:
2010-07-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 14:26 ---
Subject: Bug 24524
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jul 23 14:25:55 2010
New Revision: 162462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162462
Log:
2009-07-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #27 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 09:42 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > In my opinion revision 162487 is only a partial fix of the problem. If I
> > split
> > a modified test case in two files: [...] I stil
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-17 12:07 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed as a regression: it compiles with 4.2.4 (ppc-darwin), gives an ICE
> with 4.3.4, 4.4.2, 4.5.0 and trunk.
>
You did not mark the PR as confirmed :-)
Paul
--
pault a
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-18 18:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=21513)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21513&action=view)
The beginings of a fix
This PR is going to drive me mad!
The immediate cause is a failure to
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-20 05:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=21527)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21527&action=view)
fix for the PR
Regtests on Ubuntu10.03/i686. Will submit properly this weekend.
This was some light
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 11:57 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Hello Paul,
>
> I think the patch you committed to 4.5 causes a regression for normal
> loops, which are now handled as overlapping.
Thomas,
I did not commit anything but I
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 05:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=21808)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21808&action=view)
A fix for this PR
Bootstraps and regtests on FC9/x86_64.
It is clear that many other array intrinsics fa
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-20 18:55 ---
Subject: Bug 45081
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 20 18:55:12 2010
New Revision: 164448
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164448
Log:
2010-09-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-20 21:23 ---
Subject: Bug 45081
Author: pault
Date: Mon Sep 20 21:23:38 2010
New Revision: 164457
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164457
Log:
2010-09-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 05:31 ---
No.
Confirmed - thanks for picking it up.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 42680
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #38 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 42274
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 43492
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #33 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 42353
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 41829
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #16 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 43896
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 43326
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortr
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-30 06:51 ---
Fixed on trunk.
Thanks for the help, Salvatore - I hope that it will continue.
Paul and Janus
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-30 14:33 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Another OOP problem found by Salvatore.
>
> Jim Xia confirms that NAG f95 gives the correct result, cf.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_t
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-01 17:16 ---
I do not see any reason not to confirm this one.
This
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 158958)
--- gcc
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 05:07 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=20558)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20558&action=view) [edit]
> draft patch
Mikael,
I am pretty much out of the loop for the n
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 21:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=20571)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20571&action=view)
Fix for the PR
Boostraps and regtests on RHEL5.4/i686
Will add testcase and ChangeLogs tomorrow
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 12:57 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > It even works!
>
> Paul, any news here? This looks very useful!
> See also PR41137.
>
Daniel,
I totally forgot about this one. I had
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 12:59 ---
Thanks for noticing this Daniel.
Closed - fixed
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 14:02 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Paul, this PR seems to be fixed. Can it be closed?
>
Yes. I said on the list that I would not backport, unless asked, and then
waited :-)
Thanks for jogging my memory
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 14:05 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > I guess everything is fixed now. Can we close this PR?
>
> Ping?
>
Note that I did not apply the patch to 4.4 as I said that I would.
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 04:28 ---
Fixed. Thanks, Joost!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 04:32 ---
Fixed. Thanks, Tobias.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 13:51 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Am I right in thinking that -fwhole-file could be enabled by default, if this
PR were to be fixed? (The appropriate changes in the testsuite would have to
be mad too.)
Paul
--
http
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-24 12:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=20734)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20734&action=view)
Fix for this PR and PR40011 #42
This patch regtests OK apart from some peculiarities in proc_ptr_comp_9.
--- Comment #55 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 05:11 ---
Subject: Bug 40011
Author: pault
Date: Wed May 26 05:11:04 2010
New Revision: 159852
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159852
Log:
2010-05-26 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 04:31 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Due to my confusion over the scope of 'i' and 'I',
> I posted to c.l.f. As usual Richard Maine pieced
> through the standard's language.
&
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 04:51 ---
Other compilers produce the expected result, whereas gfortran gives:
pr44353.f90:4.19:
data (ii(i),i=1,10) /10*1/ ! here the scope of i is the data statement
1
Error: Loop variable 'i&#
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 05:02 ---
This is rather easily fixed, I suspect:
if (sym->attr.dummy && sym->attr.if_source == IFSRC_DECL)
{
...error...
}
in resolve.c should do the job. Just have to find the right place!
C
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 06:44 ---
The fix regtests fine. I will take the PR and apply the fix on friday, when I
return from a trip.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:40 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
OK, all this has a simple explanation. A revamped version of the original
testcase segfaults in runtime, at -O0.
! { dg-do compile }
! Test the fix for PR43895, in which the dummy 'a
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 14:08 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
This is tiresome - it regtested fine, I update the tree and now I get failures
on:
alloc_comp_result_1.f90
alloc_comp_scalar_1.f90
alloc_comp_transformational_1.f90
All three segfault at
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 17:51 ---
Subject: Bug 43895
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jun 5 17:51:39 2010
New Revision: 160326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160326
Log:
2010-06-05 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-06 12:49 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It's fixed for me too. x86_64/FC9
I'll mark it as fixed - thanks for noting that it had gone.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-19 12:30 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The program below should print twice "10 10 10 10 10" but due to the bug, it
> prints zeros for the first print and the tens only for the second print
Yes, indeed. This
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-19 14:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=20942)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20942&action=view)
Fix for PR, with testcase
This is less restrictive than requiring pure functions but is still correct, I
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-19 16:42 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=20942)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20942&action=view) [edit]
Tobias correctly points out various cases that are still not co
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-20 17:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=20948)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20948&action=view)
A patch for the PR
I think this correctly takes account of last night's discussion on #gfortran.
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 15:31 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Paul, any reason not to commit the patch in comment #1?
>
No! I'll try to get to it on Sunday.
Cheers
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40158
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 15:42 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > > OK for trunk with the usual embellishments of ChangeLogs and testcase?
> >
> > Yes, if you have an example for EXPR_FUNCTION - othe
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 15:44 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Any backport ?
>
Ah yes, thanks, Mikael
I have drawn up a list of PRs for which I have fixes but have not made commits.
I'll try to get through them next week.
Paul
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 16:15 ---
Subject: Bug 43843
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 27 16:14:55 2010
New Revision: 161471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161471
Log:
2010-06-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/43841
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 16:15 ---
Subject: Bug 43841
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 27 16:14:55 2010
New Revision: 161471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161471
Log:
2010-06-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/43841
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 16:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=21017)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21017&action=view)
An improved patch for the PR
Tobias,
I think that this does it - if anything it is on the conservati
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 16:22 ---
Subject: Bug 43841
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 27 16:22:27 2010
New Revision: 161472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161472
Log:
2010-06-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/43841
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 16:22 ---
Subject: Bug 43843
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 27 16:22:27 2010
New Revision: 161472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161472
Log:
2010-06-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/43841
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 16:24 ---
Fixed and backported to 4.4 and 4.5
Thanks for the report
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 16:33 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> OK for trunk?
Sorry, forget this for a moment - its causes regressions.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44582
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 17:16 ---
Subject: Bug 40158
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 28 17:16:06 2010
New Revision: 161504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161504
Log:
2010-06-28 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:58 ---
Subject: Bug 44582
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jun 29 18:57:43 2010
New Revision: 161550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161550
Log:
2010-06-29 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:03 ---
Subject: Bug 44582
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:03:41 2010
New Revision: 161551
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161551
Log:
2010-06-29 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-01 18:27 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
I'm on the road for a few days - I'll update the tree on my laptop and see what
I can do :-)
Cheers
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu do
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 14:40 ---
Subject: Bug 44596
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 4 14:40:34 2010
New Revision: 161801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161801
Log:
2010-07-04 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/44596
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 14:40 ---
Subject: Bug 44745
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 4 14:40:34 2010
New Revision: 161801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161801
Log:
2010-07-04 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/44596
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-05 19:26 ---
Subject: Bug 44596
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jul 5 19:26:12 2010
New Revision: 161848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161848
Log:
2010-07-05 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 15:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=21113)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21113&action=view)
Fix for the PR
This version fixes the problem with channel.f90 and has cleaned-up/extra
comments
--
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-08 12:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=21142)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21142&action=view)
A first step to fix this bug
This does the right thing but has not been regtested because my tree is so
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 44773
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jul 10 14:57:25 2010
New Revision: 162038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162038
Log:
2010-07-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 16:46 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Note that I did not apply the patch to 4.4 as I said that I would. What do
> you
> think?
4.4 is sufficiently different from 4.5/6 that I am closing this as fixed.
Paul
-
--- Comment #20 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 17:09 ---
Subject: Bug 44582
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jul 10 17:08:48 2010
New Revision: 162041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162041
Log:
2010-07-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 17:09 ---
Subject: Bug 44773
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jul 10 17:08:48 2010
New Revision: 162041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162041
Log:
2010-07-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 16:07 ---
Subject: Bug 44773
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 11 16:06:53 2010
New Revision: 162059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162059
Log:
2010-07-11 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
--- Comment #20 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 17:45 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Subject: Re: [OOP] Dynamic dispatch uses broken types
>
> Dear Tobias,
>
> > Paul, thanks for the check in. Do you plan to backport it to 4.5, which
> > sems
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-23 06:19 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I'm adding Paul to the CC list, as perhaps he immediately knows what's
> happening (Paul, see comment #5). Otherwise I will investigate tomorrow
> evening or Sa
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-23 15:34 ---
As the cause of this, I had better confirm it at least!
I am working on the problems with the FORALL patch and have seen a way to fix
this problem at the same time. It'll be at least a few days yet, so watch
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-23 15:52 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
...snip...
> Now I have another odd result: the following code
...snip...
> print *, size(transfer(string,"xy",len(string)))
I believe that gfortran is incorrect:
In impl
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-23 16:08 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> I'll figure out how to fix it.
This does the job:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 10:00 ---
I have prototype fix for this which works OK and does not break anything. It
copies 'p' to a temporary before the FORALL and uses the temporary for the
references. This method will also cure the pr
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-25 09:20 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
For some reason, the interface mechanism in trans-expr.c is failing for this
case of an elemental function (try a constant length for my_func or to make it
non-elemental and array valued
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-26 09:45 ---
As a final remark: Digital F90 5.0 gives the result of gfortran in #4, so now I
am convinced that I am right!
The Lahey source checker shows that setbd is not host associated in the module
but is use associated in
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-26 09:36 ---
This gives the correct behaviour:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/decl.c (révision 129434)
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c (copie de travail
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-26 09:10 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> this works with gcc_4_0_branch, which makes this a regression.
Michael and Joost,
Are you sure that anything is wrong with gfortran, here? If there is, I would
agree that this i
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-26 13:38 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > As a final remark: Digital F90 5.0 gives the result of gfortran in #4, so
> > now I
> > am convinced that I am right!
> I was actually
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-27 07:07 ---
The logic is all wrong in parse.c(gfc_fixup_sibling_symbols). I can fix this
bug but I need to regtest and to check for other such cases in the standard.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 18:07 ---
FX,
I believe that the fix is something like:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===
*** gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (revision 129505)
--- gcc/fortran
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 11:05 ---
Thanks for putting this together. I had seen the discussion but have not had
time to gather together a story, as you have done.
With the Lahey free conformance checker, the example below gives:
Compiling program
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 08:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I had come to the same conclusion overnight - it is odd that procedures are not
distinguished from non-procedures but there we are; that's what the standard
does not say.
Well done, T
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 11:49 ---
In the code for the testcase:
len_test ()
{
real4 x[7];
static int4 options.40[7] = {68, 127, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0};
..snip..
parm.48.dim[0].lbound = D.727;
parm.48.dim[0].ubound = ubound.45
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 14:13 ---
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.3.0 20070912 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
$ cat pr34002.f90
program fred
implicit none
integer,dimension(3),parameter::MaxJ=2
integer,dimension(maxval(MaxJ
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-07 11:02 ---
>
> "Two dummy arguments are distinguishable if neither is a subroutine and
> neither
> is TKR compatible (5.1.1.2) with the other."
Does this mean, though, that a subroutine is or is not
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-07 14:39 ---
According to
12.3.2.1.2 Defined assignments
If ASSIGNMENT is specified in an INTERFACE statement, all the procedures in the
interface block shall be subroutines that may be referenced as defined
assignments (7.5.1.3
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 07:16 ---
This fixes the problem. I'll do something with it when I am back at base -
likely, early next week.
Paul
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===
**
--- Comment #55 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 14:04 ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\\\[S\.5\\\]\\\[1\\\]" 2 "original" } }
> The tree (dump) itself seems to be ok.
I hadn't noticed that this one had co
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 15:03 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > and survives "dg.exp=gfortran/transfer*".
> Let me just point out that gfortran.dg/transfer_simplify_4.f90 fails
> with any optimization starting at -O1 due to the
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 15:34 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> A peculiar feature of this failure is that 'i' can be changed to INTEGE(1,2,8)
> and the test succeeds at any level of optimisation. It is only at the default
> log
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 12:46 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > This patch is OK.
> Yes indeed, I have applied it a long time ago.
As I found out minutes after I posted this note - thanks!
> I have only pointed to the last bug on transf
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 20:07 ---
The regression occurred at r129505. Allowance was not made in the correction
to gfc_resolve_transfer for assumed size dummy arguments. This fixes it:
Index: /svn/trunk/gcc/fortran/iresolve.c
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 20:19 ---
Drew,
By the way - thanks!
The regression test is just coming to an end, so it'll be fixed very soon.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34080
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 20:33 ---
Subject: Bug 34080
Author: pault
Date: Tue Nov 13 20:33:21 2007
New Revision: 130158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130158
Log:
2007-11-13 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2201 - 2300 of 3045 matches
Mail list logo
