This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR29284 - [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE for optional subroutine argument
- From: Rob <spamrefuse at yahoo dot com>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR29284 - [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE for optional subroutine argument
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=hlvQxbDxrBxpu2UsbFRNWrmBA6rvnMu08wWd7QMtglQWXd11m14kRB0l7l9ppFYZAOnScdh6fJcx9HMJ1SmHTWGXzxbC+WMORdFU3sZvfbxPDWGIhmJbjY+674EkOZpgF3Yul7SGjYoGO7ZsIY2n59LVxpGBfvE7DQbTTCykf4c= ;
Hi,
Will a possible fix to this problem be merged into
the 4.1.2 prerelease anytime soon?
I'm keeping in sync with this prerelease through
svn and I'll test it out once it's there.
Thanks for the quick response to my report on this
issue.
Rob.
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 Paul Thomas wrote:
>
>>>Salut FX,
>>>
>>>Oh yes, you are right. I'll have a look at each
>>>of these conditions.
>
>
> [sorry, i added this question to the PR instead
> of here]
>
> Just curious..
> Why isn't this part of gfc_conv_function_call()
> coded to check for fsym once and only then have
> the additional checks?
>
> if (fsym)
> {
> CHECKS_NOT_INVOLVING_e_BUT_fsym;
> if (e)
> {
> CHECK_e_STUFF;
> }
> }
>
> It doesn't look like the order of most of these is
> significant since very different things are checked,
> so there should be no risk in writing this in a
> sleek manner. The alleged benefit is a potential
> size-decrease for the gfortran binary, from my POV.
>
> PS: Rob, this will fix the ICE you were seeing with
> optional assumed length arguments (or however they
> are called).
> thanks,
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com