This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch/gfortran] Fix for PR16939

Paul Thomas wrote:
>>... I'm wondering if these interdependent conditions could be arranged 
>>clearly.  The one you're adding is mutually exclusive with both of the 
>>whereas the first one and the third one can both be true at the same time.
> I thought to do the same.  However, I am not sure that it is clearer.  More 
> importantly, I decided to ring-fence the scalar case because I think that 
> dummy argument arrays of character pointers need the same treatment.  They 
> are broken elsewhere, such that I cannot even get to this point usefully.

They will still need an array descriptor, won't they?  So I don't think this
will be the case, as the code there is meant to do the correct thing with
array descriptors IIUC.

> How about I make it leaner and meaner once I have a clear view of what to do 
> with arrays?

I don't understand how pushing this backwards will help you deal with the
array case.  Can you agree on making either the first two ifs an if-else or on
clarifying the comment before the first if, as it is currently not true given
that scalar CHARACTERs are dealt with separately?  I just don't want this code
to become even more difficult to parse than it currently is.

- Tobi

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]