This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/41242] [4.5 Regression] PPC call rejected (related to user-defined assignment?)
- From: "domob at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 10 Sep 2009 16:25:35 -0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/41242] [4.5 Regression] PPC call rejected (related to user-defined assignment?)
- References: <bug-41242-15192@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-10 16:25 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 151596)
> +++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c (working copy)
> @@ -6958,7 +6958,6 @@ resolve_ordinary_assign (gfc_code *code,
> && (lhs->symtree->n.sym == (*rhsptr)->symtree->n.sym))
> *rhsptr = gfc_get_parentheses (*rhsptr);
>
> - resolve_code (code, ns);
> return true;
> }
>
> Daniel, do you think this patch is ok, or is there a better way to fix this?
I think this is ok from the point of view of my patch. I did introduce it
mainly because I thought it is "cleaner" to resolve every piece of code, even
though it was not "needed" at that place. It seems it hurts there, though.
But I also think that maybe fixing the code so that the double resolve is no
harm in this case is the better way to go; something like adding a flag that
code is from PPCs and shouldn't be resolved and returning early, if there's no
other solution... What do you think?
But otherwise, your patch should also be ok.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41242