This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran, 4.5] [RFC] -fruntime-check=<....>
- From: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- To: Mikael Morin <mikael dot morin at tele2 dot fr>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:21:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran, 4.5] [RFC] -fruntime-check=<....>
- References: <4985D55E.6090804@net-b.de> <4986216A.80403@tele2.fr>
Mikael Morin wrote:
>> a) -fcheck-array-temporaries: Should there also be a
>> -fruntime-check=array-temporaries ?
>>
> No, as I don't think we could generate a temporary without noticing it
> at compile time.
>
I somehow don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean that
-fcheck-array-temporaries is not useful? Or do you mean that
-fruntime-check=array-temporaries as alias for -fcheck-array-temporaries
is not useful?
For the former: I don't agree - I find that option quite helpful and
also ifort has such an option. Cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html
# The |-Warray-temporaries| option warns about array temporaries generated
by the compiler, as an aid to optimization.
# The |-fcheck-array-temporaries| option has been added, printing a
notification at run time, when an array temporary had to be created for
an function argument. Contrary to |-Warray-temporaries| the warning is
only printed if the array is noncontiguous.
> About the short version for -fruntime-check, I would prefer -frt-check
> or -frtcheck rather than -frun-check.
> But I'm not strong against it.
>
FX's/Paul's patch: -fruntime-check=...
Jerry: -frun-check=...
Mikael: -frt-check=... or -frtcheck=...
Daniel: -fcheck=...
(ifort: -check ...)
(NAG f95: -C=...)
More suggestions?
Tobias
PS: Thanks for reviewing the patch and finding the typo.