This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: *PING* Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR58658 - add missing pointer-assign check for CLASS(*)
- From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:04:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: *PING* Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR58658 - add missing pointer-assign check for CLASS(*)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5253283C dot 2030808 at net-b dot de> <525A50F1 dot 9040005 at net-b dot de> <CAGkQGi+m45Ot-D+TPDAG1wJPksf1UfY8iX84bXDq9y69Uoa2Zw at mail dot gmail dot com> <525DA39F dot 2060404 at net-b dot de>
Then, the patch is OK for trunk :-)
Thanks for putting this right - it's obviously my cock-up!
Cheers
Paul
On 15 October 2013 22:20, Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>
> Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Have you checked that:
>>
>> subroutine sub(a)
>> class(*),pointer :: a
>> a => null()
>> end subroutine
>>
>> does not give an error? I think that it is why the check was introduced.
>
>
> I haven't checked it in particular, but was relying that some test in the
> library would test for it. Additionally, gfc_expr_attr() takes care to set
> for BT_CLASS "pointer" only for class_pointer - which I also checked before
> submittal.
>
> In any case, your test case compiles and "grep '=>'" finds the following
> NULL initializations:
>
> unlimited_polymorphic_1.f03: u2 => NULL()
> unlimited_polymorphic_1.f03: u2 => NULL(aptr)
>
> Tobias
--
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
--Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy