This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 52893
- From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at netcologne dot de>
- Cc: "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 10:00:54 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 52893
- References: <4F7F42E2.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> after some time with a defective computer, I am back online.
It seems to be catching.... both my linux laptop and my desktop are as
dead as door-nails.
> Here is a fix for PR 52893 (which I just submitted, I wanted to
> set a new record between bug posting and patch submissin :-), a
> wrong-code regression for trunk and 4.7. Regression-tested.
> OK for both?
OK for trunk and for 4.7.
As a matter of curiosity, why did you not inhibit common function
extraction when the function arguments contain an implicit loop
variable, rather than when they are in an implicit loop? That would
make the optimisation rather less conservative.
Thanks for the patch