Steve,
> Surely, you have Halloween across the Pond, ie., the Grim Reaper. :-)
And what, pray, does the Grim Reaper hold???
The patch is OK.
Thanks
Paul
>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Steve Kargl
>> <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:16:14PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> >> The attach patch reaps some code that is now dead
>>
>> I am sure that you are right but could you confirm that is is because
>> of previous patches?
>
> The tests in simplify.c can never be triggered because these
> are already caught in check.c. Consider,
>
> program a
> integer i
> i = 12234
> print *, ibclr(i, 123)
> end program a
>
> laptop:kargl[207] gfc4x -o z a.f90
> a.f90:4.20:
>
> print *, ibclr(i, 123)
> 1
> Error: 'pos' at (1) must be less than BIT_SIZE('i')
>
> This error message comes from check.c(gfc_check_bitfcn), and
> it is the error message I get with 4.5.x without my dead.diff
> patch. The relevant lines of code in gfc_check_bitfcn are
>
> if (nonnegative_check ("pos", pos) == FAILURE)
> return FAILURE;
>
> if (less_than_bitsize1 ("i", i, "pos", pos, false) == FAILURE)
> return FAILURE;
>
> This is the chunk of code I removed from simplify.c(gfc_simplify_ibclr)
>
> - if (gfc_extract_int (y, &pos) != NULL || pos < 0)
> - {
> - gfc_error ("Invalid second argument of IBCLR at %L", &y->where);
> - return &gfc_bad_expr;
> - }
> + gfc_extract_int (y, &pos);
>
> The if-statement can never be true. In fact, for the above Fortran
> code, gfc_simplify_ibclr is never executed beyonds its first line:
>
> if (x->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT || y->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
> return NULL;
>
> Here, x is 'i' from the program and y is 'pos'. So, both arguments
> to ibclr must be constant for the code that I removed to even have
> a chance to execute.
>
> The other chunks of code I removed are similar in nature. The
> checking done by code in check.c makes the checking done in
> simplify.c useless bloat. I'm just cleaning up the mess left
> behind the person, who introduced gfc_check_bitfcn.
>
> laptop:kargl[217] svn log -r 160492 check.c |more
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r160492 | kargl | 2010-06-09 09:24:59 -0700 (Wed, 09 Jun 2010) | 23 lines
>
> 2010-06-09 Steven G. Kargl <ka...@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> * fortran/intrinsic.c (add_functions): Change gfc_check_btest,
> gfc_check_ibclr, and gfc_check_ibset to gfc_check_bitfcn.
> * fortran/intrinsic.h: Remove prototypes for gfc_check_btest,
> gfc_check_ibclr, and gfc_check_ibset. Add prototype for
> gfc_check_bitfcn.
> * fortran/check.c (nonnegative_check, less_than_bitsize1,
> less_than_bitsize2): New functions.
> (gfc_check_btest): Renamed to gfc_check_bitfcn. Use
> nonnegative_check and less_than_bitsize1.
> (gfc_check_ibclr, gfc_check_ibset): Removed.
> (gfc_check_ibits,gfc_check_mvbits): Use nonnegative_check and
> less_than_bitsize1.
>
>> >> due to my recent changes for ishftc in check.c.
>> >> Regression tested on i686-*-freebsd.
>>
>> It looks to be OK, subject to the above, and is, I would guess,
>> "obvious" in any case.
>>
>> Thanks for the patch
>
> My regression test on i686-*-freebsd.
>
> === gfortran Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 39552
> # of unexpected failures 8
> # of unexpected successes 16
> # of expected failures 41
> # of unsupported tests 212
>
> The 8 failures are due to entry_4.f90 and select_type_12.f03.
>
> --
> Steve
>
--
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
--Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
