This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/68283 -- remove a rogue gfc_internal_error()
- From: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: "Dominique d'Humi??res" <dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr>
- Cc: jvdelisle at charter dot net, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org, Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:21:58 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/68283 -- remove a rogue gfc_internal_error()
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <A668E856-03F8-449C-B658-3726F904A156 at lps dot ens dot fr>
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 02:51:08PM +0100, Dominique d'Humi??res wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Although I have not strong objection to your proposed patch,
> I???ld prefer the following one
The patch is fine. Need a ChangeLog entry.
(patch elided)
>
> Now both patches are just papering over the real issues:
>
> (1) Why is this block reached when compiling with -ffrontend-optimize,
> but not with -fno-frontend-optimize (Thomas)?
I saw Thomas's reply. Of course, -ffrontend-optimize takes a
different code path through the compiler and rewrites some of
the internal state along the way. If the source code is fixed,
the ICE goes away. Why waste time worrying about the cause of
an ICE that clearly should be suppressed in the presences of a
sequence of emitted errors?
> (2) Is there expected side effect(s) when removing the' for???
> block introduced at revision r221955 for pr56852 (Paul)?
I doubt that there are anything side effects.
--
Steve