https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|janus a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Bill Long from comment #14)
> Just a note that I'm now using
> GNU Fortran (MacPorts gcc49 4.9-20130609_0) 4.9.0 20130609 (experimental)
> and the original test case works with this version.
Tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #14 from Bill Long ---
Just a note that I'm now using
$ gf --version
GNU Fortran (MacPorts gcc49 4.9-20130609_0) 4.9.0 20130609 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
and the original test case works with th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2012-11-28
14:54:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> integer :: i(-1:1) = 0
> print *, lbound(merge(i,i,.true.))
> Without the patch, this prints:
>1
> And with the patch:
> -1
Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:22:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The first two are runtime checks, which are basically identical. Here is a
> reduced test case for these:
>
> implicit none
> integ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:16:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > - if (tsource->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT
> > - || fsource->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT
> > - || ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-11-28
10:54:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> + && tsource->expr_type != EXPR_STRUCTURE)
That's not okay: If you have
integer, allocatable :: a(:), b(:)
one has an EXPR_STRUCTURE for "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:50:28 UTC ---
I think the following variant makes even more sense:
Index: gcc/fortran/simplify.c
===
--- gcc/fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-11-28
10:48:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> type(MPI_Datatype) :: MPI_INTEGER = merge(MPI_Datatype(4), MPI_Datatype(8),
> .false.)
The problem is related to having array PARAMETERs. For nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 10:10:40 UTC ---
For a case like this:
module test
integer :: MPI_INTEGER = merge(4, 8, .false.)
end module
we do not get an EXPR_FUNCTION in gfc_conv_initializer, but it is si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 09:40:33 UTC ---
The backtrace one gets on trunk is:
0x669272 gfc_conv_structure(gfc_se*, gfc_expr*, int)
/home/jweil/gcc48/trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:5971
0x667dbb gfc_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
17 matches
Mail list logo
