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