Hi Paul and Andre, hi all, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: ... [From Andre's patch] > + is a pointer to the variable holding the length. Therefore > + remove the deref on call. */ > + parmse.string_length = TREE_OPERAND (parmse.string_length, 0);
> This is OK but I would use instead: ... + parmse.string_length = build_fold_indirect_ref (parmse.string_length); That doesn't match the comment: TREE_OPERAND(..., 0) removes the dereference, yielding a pointer, while your suggestion adds another deref. The opposite to dereferrencing is to take the address, i.e. using gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE, ...) > If you look in ~/gcc/fold-const.c:15751, you will see that > TREE_OPERAND (parmse.string_length, 0) but that it is preceded by > cleaning up of NOOPS and, in any case, its usage will preserve the > standard API.... just in case the internals change :-) I think using TREE_OPERAND directly should be fine. The condition if (INDIRECT_REF_P (parmse.string_length)) is only true if the last operator is an indirect ref; in that case, the object must be a pointer. Thus, I think TREE_OPERAND is better than gfc_build_addr_expr. The only potential issue would be that one has the wrong type; but I think that this is not possible in this case - and for function argument passing, using the wrong type would be already wrong even for pass by value (instead of by reference). [For value passing, one could use a cast/fold_convert(), for by ref not; however, there isn't one as INDIRECT_REF_P is the outermost operator.] Tobias PS: I haven't looked closer at the rest of the patch.
