--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22290
--- Comment #13 from fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 14:09
---
Fixed.
--
fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIG
--- Comment #12 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 14:06
---
Subject: Bug 22290
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-25 14:06:23
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog t
--- Comment #11 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 13:44
---
Subject: Bug 22290
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005-10-25 13:44:46
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:53 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Bloody hell. Stupid bug.
> Alright then, let's see if I can fix this one.
Steven, it seems to disappear on current gcc4.1 and gcc4.0. I once send you a
patch to fix the gimpl
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
10:27 ---
Bloody hell. Stupid bug.
Alright then, let's see if I can fix this one.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-07
22:16 ---
g77 gets this right.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
07:42 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> And another question, all the variables which have initial values are treat
> as static. Is this reasonable?
Yes, this is reasonable. Confirm myself. In section 5.1 (Fortran95, Wo
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
08:44 ---
>From as.f.t22.ccp:
:
nz.0_1 = -1;
nz.1_2 = &__label_93;
D.475_3 = 0;
D.476_4 = 0;
if (D.476_4 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
This is also wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
08:39 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> "int4 nz.0 = -2;" look line an INIT_EXPR. It should be
>
> "int4 nz.0;
> nz.0 = -2"
Shall we add an assignment explicitly? Just give an initial value. I don't
think we s
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
15:28 ---
"int4 nz.0 = -2;" look line an INIT_EXPR. It should be
"int4 nz.0;
nz.0 = -2"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22290
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
12:38 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed, This is a fortran front-end or gimplifier bug.
> Look at what the gimplifier produces:
> int4 nz.0 = -2; // <--- this is not gimple
I am not very clear the gimple d
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:00 ---
Confirmed, This is a fortran front-end or gimplifier bug.
Look at what the gimplifier produces:
int4 nz.0 = -2; // <--- this is not gimple
nz.0 = -1;
nz.1 = &__label_93;
D.475 = nz.0 != -1;
D
13 matches
Mail list logo
