--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2005-04-26
12:53 ---
Tobi,
The component base is almost completely redundant - especially, where C indices
are used, such as in matmul. It can always be calculated from the bounds and
the stride, in any case. Most of the ope
--- Additional Comments From Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot
uni-muenchen dot de 2005-04-25 20:47 ---
Subject: Re: MATMUL failing with ALLOCATED matrices, unless
base indices given
paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
> Does this do it for you? - it works with those assertions elim
--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2005-04-25
20:31 ---
Subject: Re: MATMUL failing with ALLOCATED matrices, unless base indices given
Tobi,
Does this do it for you? - it works with those assertions eliminated.
!{ dg-do run }
! Test MATMUL for various kinds of
--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2005-04-25
15:35 ---
Subject: Re: MATMUL failing with ALLOCATED matrices, unless base indices given
>> The question remains: What to do with the offset field?
>> Fix it in the front end for static arrays, or remove it
>> altoge
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-25 14:13
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The question remains: What to do with the offset field?
> Fix it in the front end for static arrays, or remove it
> altogether?
The offset field is used for something like this:
RE
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-19
18:51 ---
descriptor.offset (in the front end) aka descriptor->base
in the library is currently useless.
Look at this:
$ cat offset.f90
program main
real :: a(2,2)
real, allocatable :: b(:,:)
real, pointer ::
