--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 11:58 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Probable patch posted in 31610
See my remark there - if we can understand it, I would feel reassured but, if
not, lets go with your version of the patch and keep this PR open as an
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:13
---
Fixed, see PR 31610
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 08:52 ---
The change seems to be introduced around 2007-01-08-r120570 /
2007-01-09-r120610.
Most probably:
r120584 | sayle | 2007-01-08 18:56:37 +0100 (Mo, 08 Jan 2007) | 19 lines
* trans-array.c
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 02:39
---
See comment #15 of pr31610 for some interesting results on this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34946
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 04:42
---
Probable patch posted in 31610
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34946
--- Comment #15 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-01-25 19:10 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
For another ICE at trans-array.c:592 see example at PR31610, comment #12.
yes, it is almost certainly the same problem:
integer :: i(1) = 0
write(*,*) foo(i+[1])
end
compiles while
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-01-24 08:08 ---
and also confirmed for the latest gfortran:
gcc version 4.3.0 20080124 (experimental) [trunk revision 131776]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34946
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 11:06 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 15:12 ---
Joost,
When did this last work?
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34946
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-01-24 15:22 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
When did this last work?
unfortunately I don't know. This piece of code might actually be newer than my
latest test of gfortran on CVS CP2K.
--
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-24 15:41 ---
When did this last work?
The reduced test case is compiled by 4.2.2, but not by 4.3.0 20071125
(experimental).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34946
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 15:55 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
When did this last work?
The reduced test case is compiled by 4.2.2, but not by 4.3.0 20071125
(experimental).
Dominique,
What is the date on the 4.2.2?
Paul
--
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-24 16:00 ---
What is the date on the 4.2.2?
From gcc.gnu.org:pub/gcc/releases, I'ld guess 2007 Oct 8:
drwxrwsr-x 3 ftp ftp 4096 Oct 8 22:07 gcc-4.2.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34946
--- Comment #11 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-01-24 16:05 ---
What is the date on the 4.2.2?
the relevant data might be the branching of 4.2
+-- GCC 4.2 branch created --+
|(Oct 20 2006)\
v v
--
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 19:24
---
For another ICE at trans-array.c:592 see example at PR31610, comment #12.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-24 19:41 ---
I'm getting there...
Something is going wrong in setting the loop start value (as is obvious from
the gcc_assert:)) that is fixed by interchanging the order of expressions in
the mask.
Thusly:
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 21:46 ---
Fortran is not release-critical.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-01-24 07:27 ---
reduced testcase:
MODULE test
TYPE realspace_grid_input_type
INTEGER :: distribution_layout(3)
END TYPE realspace_grid_input_type
TYPE realspace_grid_type
INTEGER, DIMENSION (3) :: npts
18 matches
Mail list logo
