--- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 03:04
---
Fixed on trunk. New constructor code on fortran-exp will probably take a whole
new approach on this.
Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 19:01
---
Subject: Bug 20923
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 9 19:01:41 2010
New Revision: 155773
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155773
Log:
2010-01-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/32489
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 17:47
---
Subject: Bug 20923
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Jan 9 17:47:04 2010
New Revision: 155769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155769
Log:
2010-01-09 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/20923
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 03:59
---
Ok, if I back up one step and leave the error message in trans-array.c and use
gfc_fatal_error we get a usable patch. One thing this is showing is that the
expansion is being done in the parsing/matching phase o
--- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-11-29 22:10 ---
With the patch in comment #20, I get several new failures:
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_3.f90
pr20923 and friends
pr34554"
IIRC when the constructors are used as initialization or in s
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-29 19:36
---
Created an attachment (id=19180)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19180&action=view)
Hopefully final patch
This patch moves the number of elements patch up front so that the error is
given alm
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 17:52
---
The patch in comment #18 passes all regression tests as well. I hope we are
honing in on this. It does make me wonder why at this point the BT type is
unknown.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 17:14
---
Created an attachment (id=19172)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19172&action=view)
Slightly modified charm
This version handles Dominique's test case in comment #17.
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #17 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-11-28 16:30 ---
With the patch in comment #15 (gfc, gfc_c without), I see the following for the
test
[macbook] f90/bug% cat pr19925_1_db.f90
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: N=10
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: I(N)=(/(MOD(K,2),K=1,N)/)
INTEGER, PA
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 15:16
---
With this simply modified case:
program sel
implicit none
integer,parameter :: n=10
integer:: i,j,k,l
real,dimension(n*n*n*n) :: vect
vect(:) = (/ ( (
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 15:10
---
Created an attachment (id=19170)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19170&action=view)
Third time is a charm
This patch resolves the last remaining regression. Removing the "didn't
reduce" erro
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 05:04
---
I missed one regression from the patch in comment #13. Stay tuned.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 01:46
---
Created an attachment (id=19168)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19168&action=view)
Updated patch
This exploratory patch passes all regression tests. I have also successfully
compiled and ru
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 07:31
---
Created an attachment (id=19161)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19161&action=view)
Preliminary patch
This patch cuts the compilation time of the original test case in half. It
passes all re
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:56
---
Also see PR 41807 for related info.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-13 23:00 ---
See also notes/patch attempt in PR 32489.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
--- Comment #9 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 14:43 ---
And this looks like the right place for an attack:
/* Given an array constructor, determine if the constructor is
constant or not by expanding it and making sure that all elements
are constants. This is a bit of
--- Comment #8 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 14:08 ---
There's no related bug field, but it's worth mentioning that PR19925 and this
should probably be attacked at the same time.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
18 matches
Mail list logo
