--- Comment #25 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-22 05:45 ---
Fixed on trunk. Thanks for reportimg the problems and all the help, Tobias and
Joost.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #24 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-02-21 14:16 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Subject: Re: spurious _gfortran_internal_pack
>
> I was going to check out the situation for 4.4. However, my
> inclination is to close it. I'll be working on it tonight.
this is not stu
--- Comment #23 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-02-21 10:43 ---
Subject: Re: spurious _gfortran_internal_pack
I was going to check out the situation for 4.4. However, my
inclination is to close it. I'll be working on it tonight.
Cheers
Paul
On Sat, Feb 20,
--- Comment #22 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 21:51 ---
Can this PR be closed as FIXED?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41113
--- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-14 20:16 ---
The ICEs are fixed by the last change in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36932#c8 :
@@ -5548,7 +5550,8 @@ gfc_conv_array_parameter (gfc_se * se, g
}
if (contiguous && g77 && !this_array_result
-
--- Comment #20 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-14 20:06 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> ... where the test for sym->as has been added, does the job.
This works for a clean fortran-dev+ patch in comment #6. Note that my tree
includes patch for pr36932/3.
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-14 19:58 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> ... where the test for sym->as has been added, does the job.
It does not fix the problem in my tree, I'll try the branch.
> I have included this in the fix to PR39632/3, so that the mer
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-14 19:25 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Created an attachment (id=19824)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19824&action=view) [edit]
> Second test giving a segmentation fault with the patch applied to fortran-d
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-13 12:43 ---
Subject: Bug 41113
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 13 12:42:39 2010
New Revision: 156749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156749
Log:
2010-02-13 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/41113
PR f
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 09:17 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > For reference, this was Paul's message to the list:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-12/msg00164.html
> This was followed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-12/msg00166.html
It
--- Comment #15 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-08 20:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=19824)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19824&action=view)
Second test giving a segmentation fault with the patch applied to fortran-dev
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-08 20:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=19823)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19823&action=view)
First test giving a segmentation fault with the patch applied to fortran-dev
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #13 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-08 20:49 ---
I have applied the patch to a clean trunk at revision 156605 and the test
compiles (further tests pending). I have also applied the patch to fortran-dev
at revision 156573 and the compilation gives a segmentation fau
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-08 17:25 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > This was followed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-12/msg00166.html
>
> I have just retested your patch on a clean tree to Dominique's testcase, but I
>
--- Comment #11 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-02-08 14:38 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> This was followed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-12/msg00166.html
I have just retested your patch on a clean tree to Dominique's testcase, but I
don't get any segfault, and also valgr
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-08 14:06 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> For reference, this was Paul's message to the list:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-12/msg00164.html
>
Dear Joost,
This was followed by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-12/msg0
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-02-08 08:09 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Happens a lot in 465.tonto btw.
I had tested Paul's patch on CP2K, where it reduces the calls to
gfortran_internal[un]pack from 4252 to 1276. I think it addresses an issue that
is quite import
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-06 16:47 ---
Happens a lot in 465.tonto btw.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-02-06 16:40 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=19355)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19355&action=view) [edit]
> A fix for the PR
>
> The attached bootstraps and regtests. Will fix PR41117 at
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-20 21:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=19355)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19355&action=view)
A fix for the PR
The attached bootstraps and regtests. Will fix PR41117 at the same time.
Paul
--
pault at
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-20 18:47 ---
Confirmed
I will post a somewhat simpler patch, once it has regtested if it does :-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 06:15 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I have another example, I will file it as a different PR, but make a
> 'cross-link'
PR 41137
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41113
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 06:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> which returns "false". It gets quite complicated if we want to handle:
>foo(1)%bar(1:1)%variable(:)(sub:string)
AFAICT this is already handled fine:
write(6,*) foo(1)%bar(1:1)%variable(:)(
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-19 13:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=18401)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18401&action=view)
Draft patch - first steps but incomplete & will not work
The problem is:
CALL S1(d%data)
We have the variab
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-19 08:58 ---
an ugly workaround is to write instead of
CALL S1(d%data)
the following
CALL S1(d%data(1))
which works in simple cases
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41113
25 matches
Mail list logo
