Hi,
I am looking into DSE transformation of some fortran codes. Given
below fortran declarations:
real*8 a(len) , b(len) , c(len) , d(len)
common /area/ a, b, c, d
real*8 src1(len), temp1(len), temp2(len), src2(len)
equivalence(src1, a), (src2, b), (temp
On October 26, 2017 6:47:59 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
wrote:
>Hi,
>I am looking into DSE transformation of some fortran codes. Given
>below fortran declarations:
>
> real*8 a(len) , b(len) , c(len) , d(len)
> common /area/ a, b, c, d
> real*8 src1(len), temp1(len), t
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I am looking into DSE transformation of some fortran codes. Given
> >below fortran declarations:
> >
> > real*8 a(len) , b(len) , c(len) , d(len)
> > common /area/ a, b, c, d
> > real*8 src1(len), temp1(len), t
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> >Hi,
>> >I am looking into DSE transformation of some fortran codes. Given
>> >below fortran declarations:
>> >
>> > real*8 a(len) , b(len) , c(len) , d(len)
>> > common /ar
Hi,
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> Not sure how - the issue is the FIELD_DECLs overlap which rules out a
> RECORD_TYPE and leaves us with a UNION_TYPE.
No, as the initial mail already mentioned, for the example in
question the overlapping fields can be put into a union which itsel
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Not sure how - the issue is the FIELD_DECLs overlap which rules out a
>> RECORD_TYPE and leaves us with a UNION_TYPE.
>
> No, as the initial mail already mentioned, for the example in
> que
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure how - the issue is the FIELD_DECLs overlap which rules out a
>>> RECORD_TYPE and leaves us with a UNION_TYPE.
>>
>> No
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> So I have two questions here.
> A) Is this special kind union type only generated by fortran FE for
> equivalence+common?
It's not special in that it isn't marked in any way. For all purposes
it's a normal union type with surprising field(offset)s. I
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> So I have two questions here.
>> A) Is this special kind union type only generated by fortran FE for
>> equivalence+common?
>
> It's not special in that it isn't marked in any way. For all pu
