This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: a persistent bogus warning ?
- From: Jorge D'ELIA <jdelia at intec dot unl dot edu dot ar>
- To: gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:24:50 -0300 (ART)
- Subject: Re: a persistent bogus warning ?
Dear Tobias,
----- Mensaje original -----
> De: "Tobias Burnus" <burnus@net-b.de>
> Para: "Jorge D'ELIA" <jdelia@intec.unl.edu.ar>
> CC: "gfortran" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
> Enviado: Lunes, 14 de Mayo 2012 17:00:46
> Asunto: Re: a persistent bogus warning ?
>
> Dear Jorge,
>
> Jorge D'ELIA wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 05:07:18PM -0300, Jorge D'ELIA wrote:
> >>> I would like to keep same level of optimization
> >>> but without this bogus warning.
>
> I had seen that warning as well a couple of times. Silencing it
> is not that difficult, but I was always wondering whether the
> warning is correct - or might be triggered in a case when it is
> correct. As I lacked a simple test case, I deferred it;
> additionally, there were more important bugs to deal with.
I agree that there are more important bugs to deal with!
> If you have a simple test case, please fill a bug report.
I have no problem doing it if this issue deserves some attention...
> I think you had a simple test case. (I haven't looked at
> your email in detail.)
Yes, there was one test in my first email. Also, simple
variations and different machine and OS do not show the bogus
warning. e.g.
Test Machine OS GNU Fortran Warning?
------------------------------------------------------------------
bogus1.f90 Intel Xeon Fedora 9 4.7.0 20110709 no
bogus2.f90 Intel Xeon Fedora 9 4.7.0 20110709 no
bogus3.f90 Intel Xeon Fedora 9 4.7.0 20110709 no
bogus4.f90 Intel Xeon Fedora 9 4.7.0 20110709 no
------------------------------------------------------------------
bogus1.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Windows XP 4.7.0 20110813 yes
bogus2.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Windows XP 4.7.0 20110813 no
bogus3.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Windows XP 4.7.0 20110813 no
bogus4.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Windows XP 4.7.0 20110813 no
------------------------------------------------------------------
bogus1.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Fedora 14 4.7.0 20111215 yes
bogus2.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Fedora 14 4.7.0 20111215 no
bogus3.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Fedora 14 4.7.0 20111215 no
bogus4.f90 Intel Pentium 4 Fedora 14 4.7.0 20111215 no
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Xeon machine is 64 bits while the others are 32 bits.
For brevity in the present answer, the cases 2-4 would be
included in the bug report.
> Technically, one just needs to set "TREE_NO_WARNING (decl) = 1";
> I think that would have to be done in trans-decl.c's
> gfc_build_qualified_array,
> but there might be additional places.
I am sorry but I do not understand that explanation very well...
Regards,
Jorge.
--