[Bug fortran/64952] Missing temporary in assignment from elemental function

["paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952

--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com <paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com> ---
Dear Mikael,

The pureness is also confused by the C pure, which is whiter than
white pure. I agree with your last remark about the standards
committee needing to reflect on this.

Thanks for finishing the job. Will you post a message on the clf
thread, or would you like me to do it?

Paul

On 8 February 2015 at 14:00, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64952
>
> --- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Hello Paul,
>
> setting potentially_aliased should be done inside
> gfc_walk_elemental_function_args, as the ss argument may be returned
> unmodified.
> In fact, I think it's better to do all the trans-array.c code inside
> gfc_conv_resolve_dependencies without adding the gfc_ss_info flag.
>
> There is also the case of typebound procedures and procedure pointer
> components,
> for which we should generate a temporary in any case.
>
> I think this case is something that was overlooked by the standard commitee
> when they introduced the PURE attribute.  Maybe they can provide some kind of
> "REALLY_PURE" attribute (or PURE ELEMENTAL, different from regular ELEMENTAL)
> that avoids generating temporaries everywhere?
> Or maybe the function Fred should bee IMPURE ELEMENTAL?
>
> Anyway, I think we should not rush to fix this before we are sure that the
> standard committee really expects temporaries (almost) everywhere array
> elemental functions are involved.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
> You are the assignee for the bug.
> You reported the bug.