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] |
missing cloog). Ok to commit? If it is, should I also backport to 4.3?
OK for both, with the usual delay for 4.3, with one proviso below.
Just a remark, I don't quite like the current test's name (string_compare_1.f90), but it is the only thing I came up with. Do you have a better idea? It's a reduced version of the test attached to the PR. Do you think I should include those original tests, too? (Both succeed with my fix, of course.)
I have been caught more than once with a reduced testcase revealing a different problem to the original. Finding the PR reopened because it wasn'tactually fixed is an unpleasant surprise. I would include the original test.
+ + gcc_assert (p->ref->next); + gcc_assert (!p->ref->next->next); + gcc_assert (p->ref->next->type == REF_SUBSTRING); + + if (p->value.constructor) + { + const gfc_expr* first = p->value.constructor->expr; + gcc_assert (first->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT); + gcc_assert (first->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER);
Is there any reason to go so heavy on the gcc_asserts? I don't have anything against it but ask myself if you are anticipating problems here?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |