[FORTRAN PATCH] Quash two -Wlogical-not-parentheses warnings

Marek Polacek polacek@redhat.com
Mon Sep 1 13:45:00 GMT 2014


On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 
> > diff --git gcc/fortran/interface.c gcc/fortran/interface.c
> > index b210d18..68d8545 100644
> > --- gcc/fortran/interface.c
> > +++ gcc/fortran/interface.c
> > @@ -2014,7 +2014,7 @@ compare_parameter (gfc_symbol *formal, gfc_expr *actual,
> >    if (formal->ts.type == BT_CLASS && formal->attr.class_ok
> >        && actual->expr_type != EXPR_NULL
> >        && ((CLASS_DATA (formal)->attr.class_pointer
> > -          && !formal->attr.intent == INTENT_IN)
> > +          && (!formal->attr.intent) == INTENT_IN)
> >            || CLASS_DATA (formal)->attr.allocatable))
> >      {
> >        if (actual->ts.type != BT_CLASS)
> 
> This is certainly not OK, intent is a tri-state.
> 
> 
> > diff --git gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
> > index f2ed474..6592c7e 100644
> > --- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
> > +++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
> > @@ -4589,7 +4589,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol * sym,
> >                       && e->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
> >                       && (!e->ref
> >                           || (e->ref->type == REF_ARRAY
> > -                             && !e->ref->u.ar.type != AR_FULL))
> > +                             && (!e->ref->u.ar.type) != AR_FULL))
> >                       && e->symtree->n.sym->attr.optional)
> >                     {
> >                       tmp = fold_build3_loc (input_location, COND_EXPR,
> 
> Also not OK.

Have you noticed that I'm not adding the !, only the parens?  The
code, as is, is highly suspicious, that's why we warn.  I'd strongly
prefer if we could apply a proper fix instead of this makeshift patch,
but that needs someone with Fortran knowledge; all the "obvious" fixes
regressed some tests.  That's why I filed PR62270.
 
> You probably want to wrap the (in)equality tests in parenthesis.

No, that doesn't suppress the warning.

	Marek



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list