http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas 2011-05-26 20:49:11
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 26 20:49:07 2011
New Revision: 174308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174308
Log:
2011-05-26 Paul Thomas
Thomas Koenig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas 2011-05-26 18:19:40
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 26 18:19:36 2011
New Revision: 174302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174302
Log:
2011-05-26 Paul Thomas
Thomas Koenig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-05-24 09:43:32 UTC ---
Dear Thomas,
> With your patch, what is the difference between GFC_CAN_REVERSE
> and GFC_REVERSE_NOT_SET?
Perhaps GFC_REVERSE_ENABLED and GFC_REVERSE_INHIBITE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig 2011-05-23
20:01:10 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
just two questions, for my understanding:
With your patch, what is the difference between GFC_CAN_REVERSE
and GFC_REVERSE_NOT_SET?
And why do you initialize loop.reverse c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas 2011-05-22 18:28:18
UTC ---
Created attachment 24332
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24332
A fix for the PR
This uses the same basic idea as Thomas' patch but is based on the original
logic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig 2011-05-21
15:12:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 24320
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24320
Tentative patch
Paul,
what do you think of this approach? It fixes the test case, and
passes regre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
2011-05-16 18:10:03 UTC ---
Hi Paul,
> Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
> Structurally the patch is OK.
I think the logic could be as follows: You could have two flags
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-05-16 12:48:32 UTC ---
Indeed - I just need to find the time to sort out the logic.
Structurally the patch is OK.
Cheers
Paul
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:56 AM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-16
07:27:07 UTC ---
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-05/msg00090.html
It fixes the test case of comment 0, but (cf. review comment) it does not
handle a modified version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas 2011-05-11 19:57:21
UTC ---
Created attachment 24229
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24229
A fix for the PR
This fixes the problem in two steps:
(i) It reverts r162289; and
(ii) It adds the cor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2011-05-11
19:00:06 UTC ---
Hmm... I wonder if this does the trick? It fixes the test case,
and passes all regression tests... Paul, what do you think?
Index: dependency.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-05-11
09:06:30 UTC ---
The obvious problem is that there is no temporary needed for either of the
variable expressions on the right hand side - only for their combination.
Thus, one needs to check whether a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48955
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.4, 4.4.0, 4.5.3
Target Milestone|--
16 matches
Mail list logo