--- Comment #16 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 07:02
---
Fixed on mainline, will not backport to 4.2 as it's not a regression.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #15 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-23 07:01
---
Subject: Bug 30834
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Fri Mar 23 07:00:56 2007
New Revision: 123154
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123154
Log:
PR fortran/30834
* arith.c (complex_po
--- Comment #14 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-21 09:13
---
Yet another wrinkle found (with -fno-range-check and crazily large integers),
yet another patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01398.html
This one looks final to me, though :)
--
fxcoudert at
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-18 19:46
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created an attachment (id=13227)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13227&action=view) [edit]
> New patch
>
> New patch, without the compile-time hog for complex.
This
--- Comment #12 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-18 14:29
---
Created an attachment (id=13227)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13227&action=view)
New patch
New patch, without the compile-time hog for complex.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org chan
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-18 09:36
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Looking at your patch, I have identified one
> compile-time hog in complex_pow_ui:
>
> $ time gfortran complex.f90
I identified the same after some more thinking. The fast exponentia
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-17 22:06
---
Hi FX,
I'll look at this.
Looking at your patch, I have identified one
compile-time hog in complex_pow_ui:
$ time gfortran complex.f90
real3m35.506s
user3m35.329s
sys 0m0.156s
$ cat complex.f90
prog
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-17 18:45
---
Created an attachment (id=13222)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13222&action=view)
Proposed patch
I think the attached patch would fix this bug. It's a significant rewrite of
the arith.c code
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-02-19 21:49 ---
Subject: Re: ICE with kind=8 exponentiaton
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:11:45PM -, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> >Feel free to create a gfc_extract_long_long and document that
> > e
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 21:11 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>Feel free to create a gfc_extract_long_long and document that
> e is constrained to be within [LONG_LONG_MIN, LONG_LONG_MAX].
Suppose we don't simplify if gfc_extract_int fails. Would tha
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-02-17 21:51 ---
Subject: Re: ICE with kind=8 exponentiaton
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 09:27:07PM -, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > After looking at this a little bit, I think we may want to
> > cha
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-17 21:27 ---
> After looking at this a little bit, I think we may want to
> change the error message to report the invalid integer exponent
> value and document that INT_MIN <= e <= INT_MAX. Why? Well,
> other than the speci
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-17 21:10 ---
After looking at this a little bit, I think we may want to
change the error message to report the invalid integer exponent
value and document that INT_MIN <= e <= INT_MAX. Why? Well,
other than the special values o
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-17 18:36 ---
Yup, these lines in gfc_arith_power make the assumption that we'll
never have an integer exponent outside the range INT_MIN to INT_MAX.
if (gfc_extract_int (op2, &power) != NULL)
gfc_internal_error ("gfc_arith_p
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-17 17:55 ---
Yup! Does it for me too.
Thanks, Thomas
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-17 15:22 ---
The test case was missing :-)
Here it is:
$ cat pow.f90
program pow
print *,1.0**(2_8**33_8)
end program pow
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30834
17 matches
Mail list logo
