On 09/12/2021 23:05, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Mikael,
Am 08.12.21 um 10:32 schrieb Mikael Morin:
On 07/12/2021 21:46, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Mikael,
Am 07.12.21 um 21:17 schrieb Mikael Morin:
The existing code looks dubious to me (or at least difficult to
understand), and your patch doesn’t make that any better.
I would rather try to remove the whole block, and fix the fallout on
move_alloc by adding calls to gfc_check_vardef_context in
gfc_check_move_alloc.
Can you try that instead?
I hadn't thought that far but will think about a possibly better
solution.
Hello,
I thought about it some more over night, and it is probably a poor
suggestion to restrict the check to move_alloc only. The existing code
was added for move_alloc, but it has a broader scope. Still,
gfc_check_vardef_context has the correct checks and is the one to be
used.
I have played a little, and it took some time to understand the fallout.
Your suggestion to rely on gfc_check_vardef_context actually helped to
uncover another bug: a bad check for CLASS pointer.
Reading gfc_check_vardef_context, I have undersood what the existing
code was doing, and why. It was not that dubious after all. Still, I
prefer the v2 much.
See attached for an updated patch and the extended testcase.
Regtested again. OK now?
Yes, thanks.
