[PATCH] Re: Some type mismatches
Richard Guenther
rguenther@suse.de
Thu May 31 15:33:00 GMT 2007
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > So here's the complete patch, bootstrapped and tested on
> > > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for mainline?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > 2007-05-31 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
> > >
> > > * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_expr_op): Use zero constant
> > > that matches the lse type.
> > > (gfc_trans_string_copy): Use sizetype zero constant.
> > > * intrinsic.c (add_functions): The sizeof intrinsic has
> > > index type result.
> > > * trans-types.c (gfc_get_dtype): Convert size to index
> > > type before shifting.
> >
> > And another one (again 4 byte integer vs. 8 byte integer):
>
> OK, in fact I'd say they all qualify as obviously correct. NB the second
> change in the following hunk should have no effect:
> @@ -2143,9 +2143,9 @@ add_functions (void)
>
> make_generic ("size", GFC_ISYM_SIZE, GFC_STD_F95);
>
> - add_sym_1 ("sizeof", GFC_ISYM_SIZEOF, NOT_ELEMENTAL, ACTUAL_NO, BT_INTEGER,
> di,
> + add_sym_1 ("sizeof", GFC_ISYM_SIZEOF, NOT_ELEMENTAL, ACTUAL_NO, BT_INTEGER,
> ii,
> GFC_STD_GNU, gfc_check_sizeof, NULL, NULL,
> - i, BT_INTEGER, di, REQUIRED);
> + i, BT_INTEGER, ii, REQUIRED);
> the argument types are ignored (which is the purpose of the empty check
> function).
Right, reverting the last change doesn't have an effect, so I'll do so.
I'll re-bootstrap & test with two other (obvious) fixes and re-post
the patch I am going to commit.
Thanks,
Richard.
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list