--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-02 09:57 ---
Tobias, do the cases given in PR31016 include the one above?
If yes, this PR could be closed as dupe?!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31009
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-02 10:43 ---
Tobias, do the cases given in PR31016 include the one above?
If yes, this PR could be closed as dupe?!
Actually not. PR 31016 (and related PR 31014) are about cases where one
actually knows that the memory is
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-01 16:33 ---
I'd like to suggest to do the same for derived type components.
The point is not components or not, the point is: Known size at compile time or
not. (A different thing are arrays of derived types.)
The same tree
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-01 16:58 ---
Tobias, I wouldn't expect gfortran to use memcpy if the array is not
continuous, as in your example.
OTOH, my naive assumption is, that given this = other, this(:) = other(:)
or even this(a:b) = other(c:d), it
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-01 19:41 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Since the finer details of fortran still elude me, is it possible at all that
in a statement as this = other were both shall be arrays of compatible
shape,
either stride may not equal
