This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
...I agree.
My inclination would be to do the cosmetic and small fixes to this and go ahead and commit it and then work on the alternate-character-set hypotheticality and the derived-type spacing stuff in follow-up patches, since AFAIK this doesn't cause anything to break that worked previously. But that's not a strong inclination, and I'll let Paul and FX make the call on that. :)I have fixed derived types. Instead of assuming that the derived types are packed, I have used gfc_typenode_for_spec to produce a tree type and then use the offset values in the components. I believe that this is robust.
I think we should assert that we're not dealing with derived types, since otherwise we would leave the user with a potentially hard-to-find error. Apart from that, I agree with this course of action.
...+ size_t + gfc_target_expr_size (gfc_expr *e) + {
+ case BT_DERIVED: + ctr = e->value.constructor; + for (;ctr; ctr = ctr->next) + { + gcc_assert (ctr->expr != NULL); + expr_size += gfc_target_expr_size (ctr->expr); + } + return expr_size; + default: + gfc_internal_error ("Invalid expression in gfc_target_expr_size."); + return 0; + } + }
Cheers, - Tobi
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |