From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11383 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 14:59:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11330 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 14:59:29 -0000 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050429145929.11329.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041206185831.18857.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr> References: <20041206185831.18857.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libfortran/18857] MATMUL failing with ALLOCATED matrices, unless base indices given X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg04088.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2005-04-29 14:59 ------- Subject: Re: MATMUL failing with ALLOCATED matrices, unless base indices given Tobi, > The library uses the latter way, so the offset is not needed there. > Exactly - I was aware of this because the namelist functions do not use base/offset at all. > BTW this also answers the question of ssize_t vs size_t we were dicussing > before: correct overflow only plays a role when one uses the first way, > and this > is only used in compiler-generated code. Yes, that is the point that Thomas was making, when he raised it in the first place. > > The library only uses the latter kind of indexing and therefore using > ssize_t > should work correctly under all circumstances. Again, exactly. As for the care that I am taking - after the business with namelist, I feel like the monkey and the billiard ball- I'll see if I can find it on the web. You will see why it is appropriate. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18857