This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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]

Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 47240: segfault with procedure pointer component

From: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
To: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
Cc: gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:41:23 +0100
Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 47240: segfault with procedure pointer component
References: <AANLkTin_9Bz+YbN2=N3rYSiyGRRZbeAh51PZYzOpB+As@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTincVWoboRdsEbw3yyY2XS--0OWHR965qJJNfVtn@mail.gmail.com>

Paul,

>> 2) The hunk in resolve.c fixes the rejects-valid problem in comment
>> #2. I think this should be ok, but I'm not 100% sure.
>
> I wonder if you should not limit your condition to attr.proc_pointer
> && attr.function ?

yes, I think this could not hurt. In principle the check for
"!ref->next" should already catch all the relevant cases (data
components will have an additional REF_ARRAY), but maybe your proposal
will make the code a bit clearer.


>> The patch was regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?
>>
>
> Otherwise, it looks OK for trunk.

Thanks for the review, will commit after another regtest (just to be sure).

Cheers,
Janus

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 47240: segfault with procedure pointer component
  - From: Janus Weil

References:
- [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 47240: segfault with procedure pointer component
  - From: Janus Weil
- Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 47240: segfault with procedure pointer component
  - From: Paul Richard Thomas

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]