Hi Tobias,
let me first reach for my brown bag...
> Otherwise, the quote from F2018 of my previous email applies:
>
> F2018:16.9.109 LBOUND has for "case(i)", i.e. with a 'dim'
> argument the following. The case without 'dim' just iterates
> through case (i) for each dim. Thus:
>
> "If DIM is
Hi!
On 2021-09-27T14:07:53+0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> now committed r12-3897-g00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
> Conclusion: Reviews are very helpful :-)
Ha! :-) (... and I wasn't even involed here!) ;-P
As testing showed here:
> --- /dev/null
> +++
Hi!
On 2021-09-27T14:38:56+0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 27.09.21 14:07, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> now committed r12-3897-g00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
>
> I accidentally changed dg-note to dg-message when updating the expected
> output, as the dump has changed. (Copying seemingly
Hi Harald, hi all,
On 27.09.21 21:34, Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches wrote:
[...] here is what I played with:
program p
implicit none
integer, pointer :: x(:,:)
allocate (x(-3:3,4:0))
print *, "lbound =", lbound (x)
call sub (x)
contains
subroutine sub (y)
integer, pointer
Hi Thomas,
Am 27.09.21 um 14:07 schrieb Tobias Burnus:
While playing I stumbled over the fact that when allocating an array
with a dimension that has extent 0, e.g. 4:-5, the lbound gets reset
to 1 and ubound set to 0.
I am not sure, whether I fully understand what you wrote. For:
On 27.09.21 14:07, Tobias Burnus wrote:
now committed r12-3897-g00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
I accidentally changed dg-note to dg-message when updating the expected
output, as the dump has changed. (Copying seemingly the sorry line
instead of the dg-note lines as template.)
Hi Thomas, hi Harald, hi all,
now committed r12-3897-g00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
with the following changes:
* Removed now unused gfor_fndecl_size0/gfor_fndecl_size1 (trans{-decl.c,.h})
* Add a scan-dump-not check for those.
See below for some comments.
On 24.09.21 22:38, Thomas
Hi Tobias,
OK for mainline?
As promised on IRC, here's the review.
Maybe you can add a test case which shows that the call to the size
intrinsic really does not happen.
OK with that.
Thanks for the patch!
Best regards
Thomas
This patch requires the previously mentioned simple-loop-gen patch,
which also still needs to be reviewed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579576.html
For the xfailed part of the new testcase, the updated array descriptor
is needed, but I think leaving it as xfailed for
