This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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, fortran] PR42354, alternative fix

On 12/13/2009 08:39 AM, Daniel Franke wrote:

Hi all.

The patch for PR42354 I proposed yesterday fixes the problem described in the
PR, but is not the right approach. Actually, after a lengthy discussion with
Tobias B. on IRC, we figured out that one should not check for specification
functions when checking init expressions. Hence, instead of adding a
workaround to expr.c (check_specification_function), on should remove the call
of that function in expr.c (check_init_expr) instead. Attached patch does
this. Other changes adjust a related error message and whitespace.

The remarks on C_SIZEOF still apply.


gcc/fortran/:
2009-12-13  Daniel Franke<franke.daniel@gmail.com>

         PR fortran/42354
	* expr.c (check_init_expr): Do not check for specification functions.

gcc/testsuite/:
2009-12-13  Daniel Franke<franke.daniel@gmail.com>

         PR fortran/42354
	* gfortran.dg/iso_c_binding_init_expr.f03: New.
	* gfortran.dg/intrinsic_std_1.f90: Fixed expected error message.
	* gfortran.dg/function_kinds_5.f90: Likewise.
	* gfortran.dg/selected_char_kind_3.f90: Likewise.


Regression tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?

This is OK. There are some whitespace issues, spaces instead of tabs that should be fixed while you are at it.

Jerry

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