This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 39577 - fix -fcheck=recursion
- From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr (Dominique Dhumieres)
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: burnus at net-b dot de, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:10:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 39577 - fix -fcheck=recursion
Tobias,
With your patch, the false positive in pr39577 disappears, but I have dozen
"Recursive call to nonrecursive procedure" on my bug collection for which I
am not so sure about the validity of the error. From a first look, they
seem to be the same that cause ICEs with the Paul's '-fwhole-file' flag, so
you can find two examples at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-03/msg00316.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-03/msg00317.html
I doubt they are standard conforming. If they are not, gfortran can do
whatever is deemed suitable, including the error. I have tried to make the
second test standard conforming as:
recursive function fac(i) result (res)
integer :: i, j, k, res
k = 1
goto 100
entry bifac(i,j) result (res)
k = j
100 continue
if (i < k) then
res = 1
else
res = i * bifac(i-k,k)
end if
end function
program test
interface
recursive function fac(n) result (res)
integer :: res
integer :: n
end function fac
recursive function bifac(m,n) result (res)
integer :: m, n, res
end function bifac
end interface
print *, fac(5)
print *, bifac(5,2)
print*, fac(6)
print *, bifac(6,2)
print*, fac(0)
print *, bifac(1,2)
end program test
I am not so sure because I don't really master 'recursive', 'entry', and
interfaces. But, if the code above is standard conforming, then it is a
false positive.
Thanks for the patch,
Dominique