http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl
2011-11-21 20:21:01 UTC ---
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 08:02:20PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
>
> --- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21
> 20:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21
20:02:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> One thing it relies on is that the compiler recognizes
> that the bad function are not pure, as they have a
> side effect (e.g. accessing module variable c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-21 19:31:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Because it generates "wrong-code" and I wasn't completely convinced that there
> is no bug lurking in implicit_pure. Thus, for me the status is an
> "unco
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-21
08:41:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Tobias, Why did you mark this PR with the "wrong-code" keyword?
Because it generates "wrong-code" and I wasn't completely convinced that there
is no bug l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-19 17:35:20 UTC ---
Tobias,
Why did you mark this PR with the "wrong-code" keyword?
The code is invalid, so gfortran can generated anything
it wants.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl
2011-11-19 16:18:18 UTC ---
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:46:28AM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
>
> --- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-19 11:46:28
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl
2011-11-19 16:08:06 UTC ---
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:57:23AM +, tkoenig at netcologne dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
>
> --- Comment #10 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-19 11:46:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
The code does memory management similar to that required by
TR15581 for allocatable DT components and allocatable function
results, but it also has to work f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-11-19 10:57:23 UTC ---
Am 19.11.2011 11:18, schrieb anlauf at gmx dot de:
> This won't work. The implementation of the management
> of temporaries does not allow that the same instance
> is u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #9 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-19 10:35:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> c) The reason why this function call was inlined was that the
>implicit_pure attribute is set on the function. This is
>bogus.
Good point.
Adding:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-19 10:18:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Aha. Compiling just main.f90 with -fno-frontend-optimize solves
> the problem.
Comparing -fdump-tree-original for main.f90 at -O0 without
and with -fno-fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-19 08:12:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The miscompilation is triggered by -ffrontend-optimize, work-around: use
> -fno-frontend-optimize.
> Revision 171653 is dealing with the frontend optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2011-11-19 03:47:39 UTC ---
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:40:49AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > The miscompilation is triggered by -ffrontend-optimize, work-around: use
> > -fno-frontend-optimize.
> > Rev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf 2011-11-18 23:08:09
UTC ---
Created attachment 25856
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25856
Source archive
19 matches
Mail list logo