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

Reply via email to