Le 10/01/2013 20:39, Janus Weil a écrit :
Ping! (What do we do with this little bugger?)
@Paul: Was your comment 19 in the PR meant as an OK for my patch
(submitted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-12/msg00097.html),
or was it just a general agreement with the previous comments?
FWIW, I regard the patch as a (conservative) improvement, thus certainly
acceptable.
For:
>>> @@ -6995,20 +6995,14 @@ gfc_conv_array_parameter (gfc_se * se,
gfc_expr *
>>> this_array_result = false;
>>> /* Passing address of the array if it is not pointer or
>>> assumed-shape. */
>>> - if (full_array_var&& g77&& !this_array_result)
>>> + if (full_array_var&& g77&& !this_array_result
>>> +&& sym->ts.type != BT_DERIVED&& sym->ts.type != BT_CLASS)
I would have used instead:
&& expr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE && ref == NULL)
to make the optimization available to variables of derived type.
As we are now in stage4, your version should probably be preferred though.
Regarding:
Regarding the wrong code: I fear that some code involving non-BT_DERIVED
could lead to wrong code, e.g. "a(:)%x". I don't have an example for that
I don't think this can happen as the test for non-derived type is on the
root symbol (`a' in your example). For other cases, to be honest, I
can't make any sense of all the booleans interacting with each other in
that code area (this_array_result, g77, contiguous vs.
gfc_is_simply_contiguous, ...).
Regarding the missed optimization, bah, maybe we can defer to 4.9+?
Mikael
