http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus 2013-03-29
22:35:01 UTC ---
FIXED on the 4.9 trunk.
Thanks Toon for pointing out this feature. The feature is handled in the same
way as IBM: The hidden present argument is passed before the hidden
str
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
--- Comment #10 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 21:09 ---
A lovely design by committee feature that is.
An alternative implementation strategy would be to use the same calling
convention as for pass-by-reference arguments and then copy on entry (if
present, and as an optimiz
--- Comment #9 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2008-02-18
08:32 ---
> What will happen now? Will anyone send an interpretation request, which will
> bring it up on the table again?
No, as it isn't *impossible* to implement it (with a hidden argument), an
interp won't stan
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 20:04 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I just asked Bill Long of Cray (who heads the subgroup that covers this) to
> try it on Cray's compiler - it ICE'd with a message that clearly showed that
> it didn't expect to be handed an
--- Comment #7 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2008-02-15
18:15 ---
> As written, I checked all my compilers and all get a wrong result
> - gfortran, g95, NAG f95: NOT PRESENT
> - ifort: PRESENT, WITH VALUE: 0 (even if not present)
> (ifort 10 and ifort 10.1 print a wa
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 07:17 ---
> As I am at a WG5 just right now, I decided to ask. Allowing OPTIONAL,VALUE
> was a conscious decision by the Committee (although not necessarily an
> unanimous one :-)
Can you ask the other vendors how they plan t
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 06:35
---
Scratch the patch in comment #4. When the argument is passed by value and is
missing the call looks like:
aap(0b)
So I was thinking we could build:
if (&n != 0b)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 06:11
---
Try this, seems to work, though I have not regression tested.
Index: trans-expr.c
===
--- trans-expr.c(revision 132313)
+++ trans-expr.c
--
toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
La
--- Comment #3 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2008-02-15
01:04 ---
> At the moment I do not see how one could implement this if WG5 insists that
> this is valid - except of passing a hidden argument.
As I am at a WG5 just right now, I decided to ask. Allowing OPTIONAL,V
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 00:03 ---
I now checked the F2003 standard + the two corrigenda and it misses this
clause. For TYPE such clauses were added in a corrigendum.
As you are a J3 member, can you create an interpretation request?
By the way, the r
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 23:46 ---
I think this is a defect in the standard; it should not be possible to combine
VALUE with OPTIONAL; currently all my compilers fail like gfortran.
At the moment I do not see how one could implement this if WG5 insist
14 matches
Mail list logo
