public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/55072] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Missing internal_pack leads to wrong code with derived type
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-55072-4-YUyLUvkni2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-55072-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55072
--- Comment #19 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-09 13:16:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > (In reply to comment #16)
> > > > Question is: Is the packing needed here? I would guess that it isn't.
> > >
> > > Of course I might be wrong here. After all, array_t3_ptr is a pointer, so it's
> > > not guaranteed to be contiguous, right?
> >
> > To answer that myself, I think the packing is indeed needed here.
> In fact this is exactly the case of comment 0. So, yes, we definitely need the
> packing!
Dear Janus,
R156749 was clearly an optimization too far. As far as correct code generation
is concerned, you cannot have too many PACKs. Therefore, I would apply your
regression fix, even if you are worried that it over-does it.
Cheers
Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-09 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-25 9:22 [Bug fortran/55072] New: [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-25 9:30 ` [Bug fortran/55072] " burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-07 10:35 ` [Bug fortran/55072] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-13 21:39 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-13 22:20 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-12-13 23:04 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-14 23:18 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-14 23:19 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 0:19 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 10:56 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 11:00 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 13:06 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 13:46 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 16:05 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 16:17 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 19:46 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 20:47 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 21:06 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 21:26 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-15 23:41 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-09 13:17 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-01-12 18:52 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-13 12:06 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-14 21:25 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-14 21:45 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.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-55072-4-YUyLUvkni2@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).