From: Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com>
To: Craig Burley <burley@gnu.org>
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: g77 assumed array patch [was: fortran regression]
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:18:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19971215230724.05958@dot.cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199712112353.SAA07152@melange.gnu.org>
On Thu, Dec 11, 1997 at 06:53:48PM -0500, Craig Burley wrote:
> What I believe I *wanted* to do, long ago, is have g77 simply
> leave the *upper* bound unspecified, i.e. a NULL_TREE, and
> have the back end simply cope. That would be an explicitly
> documented way to say "upper bound not specified, may be as
> high as the corresponding actual-argument's upper bound".
>
> But it wasn't then, and might not be now, easy to teach the
> back end about this construct. If it is now, that would be
> my suggestion -- it's a trivial change in the g77 front end,
> but if someone can implement the back-end changes to cope with
> a NULL_TREE in the "upper" part of a build_range_type call.
The following patch implements this suggestion.
It compiles the null test case
subroutine star(aap, noot)
dimension aap(*)
end
well enough; I'm about to sick it on SpecFP (which is actually my main
impetus to fix this -- I want to see how well my giv patch works ;-)
So we'll see how well it does on real code soon enough.
I believe I've gotten all of the cases elsewhere in the compiler that
were assuming an upper bound existed. I may have missed some, and I
may have changed some that could not possibly be called on a range type.
Someone else ought to look through and verify that.
r~
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-12-15 23:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-12-10 7:08 Results for egcs-971207 on m68k-next-nextstep3 Toon Moene
1997-12-10 13:36 ` fortran regression [was Re: Results for egcs-971207 on m68k-next-nextstep3] Dave Love
1997-12-10 16:43 ` Jeffrey A Law
1997-12-11 11:14 ` Dave Love
1997-12-11 16:33 ` Craig Burley
1997-12-12 10:18 ` Dave Love
1997-12-12 18:04 ` Craig Burley
[not found] ` <rzqd8j2zb5m.fsf.cygnus.egcs@djlvig.dl.ac.uk>
1997-12-12 15:46 ` Jason Merrill
1997-12-13 10:44 ` Dave Love
1997-12-15 23:18 ` Richard Henderson [this message]
1997-12-18 23:19 ` g77 assumed array patch [was: fortran regression] Jeffrey A Law
1997-12-19 12:37 ` Dave Love
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=19971215230724.05958@dot.cygnus.com \
--to=rth@cygnus.com \
--cc=burley@gnu.org \
--cc=egcs@cygnus.com \
/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).