Dear Paul,
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on i686/Ubuntu 11.1 - OK for trunk?
2011-12-30 Paul Thomas<pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
* trans-array.c (gfc_array_allocate): Null allocated memory of
newly allocted class arrays.
PR fortran/51529
PR fortran/46328
* interface.c(build_compcall_for_operator): Add a type to the
expression.
You might want to quote additionally PR fortran/51052 and PR fortran/51052.
*** gcc/fortran/interface.c (revision 182566)
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c (working copy)
***************
*** 3256,3261 ****
--- 3256,3269 ----
I would have liked a diff with "-p" flag which shows the function name
in the diff (for instance "svn diff -x -p" or "svn diff -x '-p -u'").
+ if (expr->ts.type == BT_CLASS&& expr3)
+ {
+ tmp = build_int_cst (unsigned_char_type_node, 0);
+ /* With class objects, it is best to play safe and null the
+ memory because we cannot know if dynamic types have allocatable
+ components or not. */
I don't like the comment; how about something along the following: "For
class objects we need to nullify the memory in case they have
allocatable components; the reason is that _copy, which is used for
initialization, first frees the destination."
+ gfc_trans_class_init_assign (gfc_code *code)
+ {
+ stmtblock_t block;
+ tree tmp;
+ gfc_se dst,src,memsz;
Space after each comma.
+ gfc_expr *lhs,*rhs,*sz;
Ditto.
***************
*** 3301,3306 ****
--- 3502,3514 ----
{
gfc_conv_expr_reference (&parmse, e);
+ /* Catch base objects that are not variables. */
+ if (e->ts.type == BT_CLASS
+ && e->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE
+ && expr&& e == expr->base_expr)
The indentation looks wrong.
+ for (args= e->value.function.actual; args; args = args->next)
+ {
+ if (expr == args->expr)
+ expr = args->expr;
+ }
Space before the equal sign in "args=". If you want, you can also remove
the curly braces as they are not required.
+ args= code->expr1->value.function.actual;
+ for (; args; args = args->next)
+ {
+ if (expr == args->expr)
+ expr = args->expr;
+ }
Ditto.
get_declared_from_expr (gfc_ref **class_ref, gfc_ref **new_ref,
! gfc_expr *e)
--- 5623,5629 ----
get_declared_from_expr (gfc_ref **class_ref, gfc_ref **new_ref,
! gfc_expr *e, bool types)
I think "types" deserves a comment line in the comment block before the
function; additionally - and related - I wonder whether the name is well
chosen. "types" reminds me of "bt" rather than of "bool". In the
changelog, you use: "Add 'types' argument to switch checking of derived
types on or off." Thus, "check_types" would be a possible choice.
Otherwise, the patch looks okay to me.
Happy new year to every one!
Tobias
