From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6863 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2010 13:09:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 5296 invoked by uid 48); 16 Sep 2010 13:09:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100916130941.5291.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/45689] [F2003] Missing transformational intrinsic in the trans_func_f2003 list In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg01831.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-09-16 13:09 ------- MAXLOC and MINLOC are also missing (see pr25104). > They are not, as there, afaik, are no simplifiers yet. > > Hence, with your patch they will be accepted, but you'd end up with wrong code > at the end, as the functions are not properly simplified and thus not constant. I have seen that, and also in gcc/fortran/simplify.c /* FIXME: Returning here avoids a regression in array_simplify_1.f90. Replace NULL with gcc_unreachable() after implementing gfc_simplify_cshift(). */ Am I correct to understand that the current situation (i.e. the error message) is a temporary fix for some missing gfc_simplify_*? -- dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|CSHIFT and EOSHIFT are not |[F2003] Missing |in the trans_func_f2003 list|transformational intrinsic | |in the trans_func_f2003 list http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689