This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/45586] [4.8 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment
- From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:29:33 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/45586] [4.8 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-45586-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-30 12:29:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #72)
> > (In reply to comment #63)
> > > That's bogus as TYPE_FIELDS
> > > is supposed to be shared amongst variant types.
> >
> > Then we'll have to revert Micha's recursive restrict work.
>
> I don't think so, it merely has to be fixed.
How so? by making it non-recursive?
For variable to be type compatible for assignment, they shall be variants of
the same type, and thus have the same TYPE_FIELDS.
If they shall have the same TYPE_FIELDS, they shall have the same components,
the same components have the same types, so that one cannot be restrict
qualified.
>
> > Is it possible for the front-end to specify alias sets by hand (I mean without
> > relying on the middle-end computing them based on types etc)?
>
> Yes. But that does not work with LTO,
You mean calling the front-end's code does not work at LTO time or the alias
sets are not saved/restored for LTO?
> nor does it address the original
> issue of supporting INTENT IN/OUT properly.
Ah? Isn't a restricted type variable (resp. component, etc) merely one that has
its own alias set? So if it works with restrict, it works with alias sets?