On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 04:40:33PM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > From: Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches
> > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:59:45 +0200
>
> > Hi Mikael,
> >
> > > Ping for the four patches starting at
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057759.html :
> > > https
On 26.04.22 16:40, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
These, or specifically r12-8227-g89ca0fffa48b79, "fortran:
Pre-evaluate string pointers. [PR102043]" have further
exposed (the issue existed before but now fails for more
platforms) PR78054 "gfortran.dg/pr70673.f90 FAILs at -O0",
at least for cris-e
> From: Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:59:45 +0200
> Hi Mikael,
>
> > Ping for the four patches starting at
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057759.html :
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057757.html
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipe
Yes, Thank you Mikael!
On 4/22/22 6:59 AM, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote:
Hi Mikael,
Ping for the four patches starting at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057759.html :
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057757.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-
Hi Mikael,
Ping for the four patches starting at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057759.html :
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057757.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057760.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057758.htm
Ping for the four patches starting at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057759.html :
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057757.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057760.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-April/057758.html
https://gcc.g
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 6:57 PM Mikael Morin via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> this is a fix for PR102043, which is a wrong code bug caused by the
> middle-end concluding from array indexing that the array index is
> non-negative. This is a wrong assumption for "reversed arrays",
> that is ar
Hello,
this is a fix for PR102043, which is a wrong code bug caused by the
middle-end concluding from array indexing that the array index is
non-negative. This is a wrong assumption for "reversed arrays",
that is arrays whose descriptor makes accesses to the array from
last element to first eleme