This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Patch, fortran] PR34861 and PR34854 - committed as obvious
- From: "Paul Richard Thomas" <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: "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: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:06:39 +0100
- Subject: [Patch, fortran] PR34861 and PR34854 - committed as obvious
I have committed a couple of obvious one-liners:
PR34861 - if the results are identical, there is no need to do a bound
check. I guess that this could be extended to non-cnstant but
identical array bounds but is this legal?
PR34854 - I completely forgot, when reworking this, to include the
case of a renamed variable that had been previously loaded without
renaming and without an ONLY clause.
Both testcases are the reporters'.
I just noticed, in preparing the PR, that I had not checked in the
modification to mapping_2.f90.
All bootstrapped and regtested on x86_ia64/FC8.
Paul
2008-01-20 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/34861
* resolve.c (resolve_entries): Do not do an array bounds check
if the result symbols are the same.
PR fortran/34854
* module.c (read_module) : Hide the symtree of the previous
version of the symbol if this symbol is renamed.
2008-01-20 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/34784
* gfortran.dg/mapping_2.f90: Correct ubound expression for h4.
PR fortran/34861
* gfortran.dg/entry_array_specs_3.f90: New test.
PR fortran/34854
* gfortran.dg/use_rename_1.f90: New test.