| Message ID | 516C3AA0.4020302@sfr.fr |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
>> Indeed, that's invalid: >> > And then, the call to gfc_match_varspec shouldn't be there in the first > place. I'll test the following later. It seems like the parts you're removing have essentially been there since day zero. Would be interesting to know if (and where) your patch fails. Cheers, Janus
Hi Mikael, >> And then, the call to gfc_match_varspec shouldn't be there in the first >> place. I'll test the following later. > > It seems like the parts you're removing have essentially been there > since day zero. Would be interesting to know if (and where) your patch > fails. actually I just tried it myself, and I did not see any failures in the testsuite. So in fact it seems like it might be ok to remove it. However, one should carefully check the standard, in order to make sure that this is really invalid in all cases, and that the "gfc_match_varspec" is not needed for some corner case, which is not covered by the testsuite. As the comment says which the patch is removing, the gfc_match_varspec should be relevant for cases like this: print *,char_func()(1:3) print *,array_func()(2) print *,derived_type_func()%comp Are we sure that all of these are actually invalid? (At least they are rejected by gfortran.) Or are there other cases which would be valid? Cheers, Janus
Janus Weil wrote: > As the comment says which the patch is removing, the gfc_match_varspec > should be relevant for cases like this: > > print *,char_func()(1:3) > print *,array_func()(2) > print *,derived_type_func()%comp > > Are we sure that all of these are actually invalid? (At least they are > rejected by gfortran.) Or are there other cases which would be valid? They are all invalid. The only exception is that a function itself is regarded as variable (if it returns a pointer): f() = 5 That's a new Fortran 2008 feature, which caused quite some trouble with user-defined operators, e.g. something like: 123 .foo. 5 = ... where "123" could be an argument (binary operator) or a label (+plus unary operator). (When we implement it, we should do some careful interpretation-request reading.) However, I think that doesn't affect the code you are removing. (Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the actual patch.) Tobias
Index: primary.c =================================================================== --- primary.c (révision 197949) +++ primary.c (copie de travail) @@ -1954,11 +1954,10 @@ gfc_match_varspec (gfc_expr *primary, int equiv_fl gcc_assert (!tail || !tail->next); - if (!(primary->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE - || (primary->expr_type == EXPR_STRUCTURE - && primary->symtree && primary->symtree->n.sym - && primary->symtree->n.sym->attr.flavor))) - return MATCH_ERROR; + gcc_assert (primary->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE + || (primary->expr_type == EXPR_STRUCTURE + && primary->symtree && primary->symtree->n.sym + && primary->symtree->n.sym->attr.flavor)); if (tbp->n.tb->is_generic) tbp_sym = NULL; @@ -3102,18 +3101,8 @@ gfc_match_rvalue (gfc_expr **result) gfc_error ("Missing argument list in function '%s' at %C", sym->name); if (m != MATCH_YES) - { - m = MATCH_ERROR; - break; - } + m = MATCH_ERROR; - /* If our new function returns a character, array or structure - type, it might have subsequent references. */ - - m = gfc_match_varspec (e, 0, false, true); - if (m == MATCH_NO) - m = MATCH_YES; - break; generic_function: