Am 21.07.2016 um 20:00 schrieb H.J. Lu:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Here is the pacth the way I committed it.
This caused:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961
As usual for SPEC errors: Please provide a test case.
Regards
Thomas
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Mikael,
>
>> Then handle the GFC_DEP_ERROR here. Or initialize fin_dep with
>> GFC_DEP_NODEP at the beginning, as you prefer.
>> OK with either (and the unreachable assertions).
>
>
> Here is the pacth the way I committed it.
>
> Thanks fo
Hi Mikael,
Then handle the GFC_DEP_ERROR here. Or initialize fin_dep with
GFC_DEP_NODEP at the beginning, as you prefer.
OK with either (and the unreachable assertions).
Here is the pacth the way I committed it.
Thanks for the review and the comments.
Regards
Thomas
2016-07-19 Tho
Le 18/07/2016 à 22:20, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
Am 18.07.2016 um 20:58 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Unfortunately not. The original code (before I lifted out the
functionality) sometimes had GFC_DEP_ERROR at the end of the
function, which was then removed by
return fin_dep == GFC_DEP_OVERLAP;
Tha
Am 18.07.2016 um 20:58 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Unfortunately not. The original code (before I lifted out the
functionality) sometimes had GFC_DEP_ERROR at the end of the
function, which was then removed by
return fin_dep == GFC_DEP_OVERLAP;
That is very strange, there is an assert just a few
Le 17/07/2016 à 18:21, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
Do we actually want to backport this? Technically, it is a regression,
but people are not likely to notice much.
It is not an ICE, neither a code correctness issue as far as I can see,
so I would rather not backport.
Fine with me.
Hi Thomas,
> So, OK with a comment why this appears? Or should I simply
> rename GFC_DEP_ERROR to GFC_DEP_NODEPFOUND to make this a bit
> clearer?
I recommend the latter. Reporting an error should be done only when an
error occurred, but no dependency detected does not feel like an error.
Let's
Hi Mikael,
Do we actually want to backport this? Technically, it is a regression,
but people are not likely to notice much.
It is not an ICE, neither a code correctness issue as far as I can see,
so I would rather not backport.
Fine with me.
+case GFC_DEP_FORWARD:
+ retur
Hello,
Le 16/07/2016 à 15:38, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
Hello world,
this fixes PR 71902. The recent fix for PR 71783 introduced a
performance and code size regression a string temporary was created for
the test case when it was not actually needed.
I also took the opportunity of renaming the mi
