https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Mar 25 10:15:46 2015
New Revision: 221657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221657root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix regression introduced at revision 221586.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
Duplicate of pr65532?
Rather cause of pr65532. Only comment #8 is a duplicate.
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7)
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Duplicate of pr65532?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #6)
Thanks for finishing the job.
I have yet to fix 4.9 as well, as you suggested. In a week or so.
Will you post a message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
Dear Mikael,
The pureness is also confused by the C pure, which is whiter than
white pure. I agree with your last remark about the standards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Mar 23 07:53:31 2015
New Revision: 221586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221586root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-23 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hello Paul,
setting potentially_aliased should be done inside
gfc_walk_elemental_function_args, as the ss argument may be returned
unmodified.
In fact, I think it's better to do all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Technical, it is a bit similar to:
module m
integer :: i
contains
pure subroutine f(x)
integer, intent(inout) :: x
x = 2*x + i
end subroutine
end module m
which
12 matches
Mail list logo
