public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/55501] [F03] ICE using MERGE in constant expr
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:22:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-55501-4-xHDOyzJiFX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-55501-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501

--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:22:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The first two are runtime checks, which are basically identical. Here is a
> reduced test case for these:
> 
>   implicit none
>   integer :: i(-1:1) = 0
> 
>   print *, lbound(merge(i,i,.true.))
>   print *, ubound(merge(i,i,.true.))
> 
> end
> 
> Without the patch, this prints:
>            1
>            3
> And with the patch:
>           -1
>            1
> 
> The output with the patch does look more reasonable to me. Or is there any
> reason why the standard would demand the MERGE expression to have bounds of 1:3
> instead of -1:1 ?

At least all of ifort, sunf95 and g95 agree with the first variant (1:3).

[Btw, the bound_{2,7} test cases come from PR 29391.]


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-11-28 12:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-28  0:27 [Bug fortran/55501] New: " longb at cray dot com
2012-11-28  0:37 ` [Bug fortran/55501] " longb at cray dot com
2012-11-28  9:16 ` [Bug fortran/55501] [F03] " janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28  9:40 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 10:11 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 10:36 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 10:49 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 10:50 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 10:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 11:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 12:17 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-28 12:22 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-11-28 14:54 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-26  4:43 ` longb at cray dot com

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-55501-4-xHDOyzJiFX@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).