On 10/27/25 8:20 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Yuao Ma wrote:
It is indeed simpler. I have used this api to update the patch.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-const.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-const.cc
index f70f36284a3..966a837c25c 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-const.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-const.cc
@@ -444,6 +444,10 @@ gfc_conv_constant (gfc_se * se, gfc_expr * expr)
if (expr->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER)
gfc_conv_string_parameter (se);
else
- se->expr = gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE, se->expr);
+ {
+ se->expr
+ = gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE,
+ gfc_trans_force_lval (&se->pre, se->expr));
+ }
This is mostly fine. Except:
* It seems as if the email program converted tabs to single
spaces – or messed up whitespace in general? Unless this only
my mailer.
* The { } are no longer needed (they are a leftover of version 1 of
the patch that had 3 lines of code and, hence, required them).
* I think it is more readable to use 2 lines, i.e.
se->expr
= gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE,
gfc_trans_force_lval (&se->pre, se-
>expr));
i.e. put the 'gfc_' under the '('; the ';' is in column 76, which is <= 80.
Or alternatively:
se->expr = gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE,
gfc_trans_force_lval (&se->pre, se->expr));
No idea what's better.
In any case the actual change is OK (→ LGTM) and can be committed,
taking the nits into account.
Thanks for the patch!
Tobias
Please make sure you rerun the entire gfortran testsuite before you push
anything. I tried the patch I could get at and got several failures. I
may have flubbed it up, who knows?
Cheers,
Jerry
