On 04/02/2016 07:40 AM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 04/02/2016 05:42 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2 avr. 2016 à 11:44, Dominique d'Humières a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi Jerry,
>>>
...
I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the
PR.
Two existing
On 04/02/2016 05:42 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
>> Le 2 avr. 2016 à 11:44, Dominique d'Humières a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>>> ...
>>> I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the
>>> PR.
>>> Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Find
> Le 2 avr. 2016 à 11:44, Dominique d'Humières a écrit :
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
>> ...
>> I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the PR.
>> Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Finding the
>> problems earlier in the matchers I think is the right
Hi Jerry,
> ...
> I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the PR.
> Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Finding the
> problems earlier in the matchers I think is the right way to go. I am curious
> if
> the old checks ever get triggered (I
This problem is when array indexes are given that have non-integer expressions
or otherwise bad arrays, not just related to reshape.
There are several test cases presented in the PR. Most of these are fixed by
adding a check for any non-integer in match_array_element_spec. The patch-let
in gfc_s
Hi,
the above ICE is fixed by the following simple/trivial fix:
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/simplify.c (revision 234170)
+++ gcc/fortran/simplify.c (working copy)
@@ -5163,6 +5163,9 @@
|| !is_co
