This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR52916 - fix TREE_PUBLIC() = 0 for module procedures
- From: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- To: gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:28:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR52916 - fix TREE_PUBLIC() = 0 for module procedures
- References: <4F857EF0.email@example.com>
* PING *
It is a rather serious rejects-valid regression. It also affects SPEC
CPU 2006 and the patch has been confirmed (cf. PR) to fix the regression.
Tobias Burnus wrote:
my recent patch for setting PRIVATE module variables and procedures to
TREE_PUBLIC()=0 had a flaw: I completely forgot about generic
interfaces. Even if the specific name is PRIVATE, the specific
function is still callable through the a (public) generic name.
Thanks to HJ for the report. (The bug causes a failures of SPEC CPU
I think the handling of type-bound procedures is correct. However, I
wouldn't mind if someone could confirm it. I only check for the
specific entries as GENERIC, OPERATOR and ASSIGNMENT use a
type-bound-proc name, which is already handled. I also didn't try to
optimize for private DT, private generics etc. First, I think it is
not needed. And secondly, through inheritance, it can get extremely
Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
OK for the trunk?