Good plan, Andre - OK for gcc-5.x
Thanks
Paul
On 21 July 2015 at 10:05, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as this is a 5/6 regression and the patch now lived for some time in the 6
> branch without any complaints, I like to propose the same patch for the
> 5-branch.
>
> Bootstraps and regtests fine on x86_64-linux-gnu/f21.
>
> Ok for trunk-5 (aka gcc-5-branch)?
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:17:07 +0200
> Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> thanks for the review, commited as r225928.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:40:29 +0200
>> Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Andre,
>> >
>> > I am still in the bizarre situation that the testcase compiles and
>> > runs correctly on a clean trunk!
>> >
>> > That said, the patch applies cleanly and, at very least from my point
>> > of view, does not do any harm :-)
>> >
>> > OK for trunk
>> >
>> > Thanks for the patch
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > On 11 July 2015 at 14:08, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > > Hi Mikael,
>> > >
>> > >> > @@ -7030,7 +7053,8 @@ gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign (tree dest,
>> > >> > gfc_component * cm, gfc_expr * expr, gfc_add_expr_to_block (&block,
>> > >> > tmp); }
>> > >> > else if (init && (cm->attr.allocatable
>> > >> > - || (cm->ts.type == BT_CLASS && CLASS_DATA
>> > >> > (cm)->attr.allocatable)))
>> > >> > + || (cm->ts.type == BT_CLASS && CLASS_DATA
>> > >> > (cm)->attr.allocatable
>> > >> > + && expr->ts.type != BT_CLASS)))
>> > >> > {
>> > >> > /* Take care about non-array allocatable components here. The
>> > >> > alloc_* routine below is motivated by the
>> > >> > alloc_scalar_allocatable_for_
>> > >> > @@ -7074,6 +7098,14 @@ gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign (tree dest,
>> > >> > gfc_component * cm, gfc_expr * expr, tmp = gfc_build_memcpy_call (tmp,
>> > >> > se.expr, size); gfc_add_expr_to_block (&block, tmp);
>> > >> > }
>> > >> > + else if (cm->ts.type == BT_CLASS && expr->ts.type == BT_CLASS)
>> > >> > + {
>> > >> > + tmp = gfc_copy_class_to_class (se.expr, dest, integer_one_node,
>> > >> > + CLASS_DATA
>> > >> > (cm)->attr.unlimited_polymorphic);
>> > >> > + gfc_add_expr_to_block (&block, tmp);
>> > >> > + gfc_add_modify (&block, gfc_class_vptr_get (dest),
>> > >> > + gfc_class_vptr_get (se.expr));
>> > >> > + }
>> > >> > else
>> > >> > gfc_add_modify (&block, tmp,
>> > >> > fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (tmp), se.expr));
>> > >> But this hunk is canceled by the one before, isn't it?
>> > >> I mean, If the condition here is true, the condition before was false?
>> > >
>> > > You are absolutely right. The second hunk is dead code and removed in the
>> > > attached patch. That must have been the first attempt to address the
>> > > issue
>> > > and later on I did not perceive that it was useless. Sorry for that.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Andre
>> > > --
>> > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
