Hi all,
sorry for duplicates, but the initial answer was rejected by the qmail-daemon
of the fortran-list due to my mobile sending html.
Now, the patch was not intended to solve 61337. Although I have looked into the
pseudo code generated for 61337, I couldn't figure easily what is going on
there. In my impression, this is something from incorrectly computed bounds to
an integer(8),pointer integer(4),pointer mix up. Therefore no patch for that
from my side currently.
Nevertheless, do I hope that some reviewer finds a minute to look at the patch
for pr60255.
Regards,
Andre
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:35:48 +0100
Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
> The new patch fixes the ICEs, but still emit the wrong codes reported in
> pr61337.
>
> Thanks and Happy New Year to all,
>
> Dominique
>
> > Le 30 déc. 2014 à 14:39, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Dominique,
> >
> > thanks for pointing that out. That was caused by a flaw in the current
> > patch. In the attached version this is fixed now.
> >
> > Bootstraps and regtests ok on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:32:27 +0100
> > Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> For the record, compiling the tests in pr61337 with the patch applied on
> >> top of r219099 gives ICEs:
> >>
> >> use array_list
> >> 1
> >> internal compiler error: in gfc_advance_chain, at fortran/trans.c:58
> >>
> >> Since this replaces some wrong-code generation by some ICEs, I don’t think
> >> this should delay the fix of pr60255.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Dominique
>
--
Andre Vehreschild * Kreuzherrenstr. 8 * 52062 Aachen
Tel.: +49 241 9291018 * Email: ve...@gmx.de
