--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-31 06:26 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Yes, it is indeed a regression, which was introduced between
2007-05-25-r125057 and 2007-05-29-r125159.
...and is almost certainly my doing - damn!
I am on to it
Paul
--
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-31 09:19 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Yes - it's r125088 that is responsible for the regression.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32156
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-31 17:01 ---
Yes - it's r125088 that is responsible for the regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-05/msg00788.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32156
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-31 21:12 ---
Subject: Bug 32156
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 31 21:12:10 2007
New Revision: 125241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125241
Log:
2007-05-31 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-31 21:13 ---
Fixed as 'obvious'.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-31 21:11 ---
Subject: Bug 32156
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 31 21:11:31 2007
New Revision: 125240
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125240
Log:
2007-05-31 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-30 16:36 ---
Yes, it is indeed a regression, which was introduced between
2007-05-25-r125057 and 2007-05-29-r125159.
==26453==at 0x474E05: gfc_add_loop_ss_code (trans-array.c:1638)
==26453==by 0x475495:
