http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-18
18:15:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:15:51 2012
New Revision: 188748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188748
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-18
18:14:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:14:06 2012
New Revision: 188747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188747
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-06
15:34:23 UTC ---
*** Bug 45602 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-01
17:54:42 UTC ---
MOVE_ALLOC - following the current interpretation request - seems to be more
complicated that I had imagined:
It's unclear to me whether the users have to invoke it on all images (lik
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
