public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/25829] [F2003] Asynchronous IO support
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-25829-4-6hlRsR90LK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-25829-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829
--- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-13 13:15:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> I think the easiest is to not set the "restrict" of dummy arguments involved in
> ASYNCHRONOUS I/O.
It seems that GCC understands something different than I by "restrict"; it
seems to be much less aggressive than I thought - and seems to match exactly
what we need, such that no action seems to be required.
Cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00208.html and see PR 49733 for a
missed-optimization PR, which is for adding an variable attribute which does
optimize across function calls - which is allowed most of the time in Fortran
(except for ASYNCHRONOUS and for coarrays).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-13 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-25829-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-03-04 18:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-04 18:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-15 9:11 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-13 9:25 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-13 13:16 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2006-01-17 21:53 [Bug fortran/25829] New: " jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-17 23:33 ` [Bug fortran/25829] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-17 1:20 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-17 5:02 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-23 16:49 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 22:19 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 22:24 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-05 22:35 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 22:07 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 22:09 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 22:12 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-10 21:23 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-11 15:26 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-28 22:03 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-11 22:28 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-11 22:29 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-08 10:11 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-08 10:42 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-13 17:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-25829-4-6hlRsR90LK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).