Re: [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR 40870: include formal args in backend_decl of PPCs

[Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

2009/8/5 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>:
> Paul,
>
>> Aahhh! ?That's because it's so good that it's invisible. ?For lesser
>> mortals that can't deal with the latest technology, please find the
>> diff attached.
>
> I think your patch effectively does pretty much the same as mine (even
> though mine lacks the invisibility mode ;), but your version is
> probably safer against regressions, since it's guarded by an
> additional check for derived->attr.proc_pointer_comp.
>
> Btw, I found another minor flaw in my patch, concerning cases like
> "procedure(integer), pointer, nopass".
>
> Updated patch (based on Paul's version) is attached. Ok to commit
> after another regtest?

Ping! (regtest went fine)

Cheers,
Janus



> 2009-08-05 ?Janus Weil ?<janus@gcc.gnu.org>
> ? ? ? ? ? ?Paul Thomas ?<pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> ? ? ? ?PR fortran/40870
> ? ? ? ?* trans-types.c (gfc_get_ppc_type): Include formal args in backend_decl
> ? ? ? ?using the interface symbol.
> ? ? ? ?(gfc_get_derived_type): Prevent infinite recursion loop
> ? ? ? ?if a PPC has a derived-type formal arg.
>
> 2009-08-05 ?Janus Weil ?<janus@gcc.gnu.org>
> ? ? ? ? ? ?Paul Thomas ?<pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> ? ? ? ?PR fortran/40870
> ? ? ? ?* gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_13.f90: Extended.
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Janus Weil<janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> 2009/8/4 Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Well, in principle you're right: Usually one should test for
>>>>> TYPE_FIELDS. However, in this case I think it's not possible, because
>>>>> the fields have not been built yet. Here's an example:
>>>>
>>>> Indeed! ?That was the idea behind the modified patch that I attached.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I think the attachment was missing?!?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Janus
>