| Message ID | AANLkTinQ39-qeFeDJPGvvxV2U1Y87r2b9=Dj7BfoLuL+@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 08/17/2010 10:58 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Dear Jerry, > >> OK for trunk? > > OK but for one tiny question: > > Should you not check for parentheses, just to stop the code trying to > charge down, for example, binary operators? Since expr1 has been > resolved already at the top of resolve_code, this should not matter - > it's just unnecessary. > I was thinking of a case like this: print *, (-p) Where p is invalid. We need to drill down to run the check on it. I also found I get a regression with integer_exponentiation.f90 if we do not drill down. This turns out to have a substatial mix of operators. Interesting test case. Thanks for review. Jerry
On 08/18/2010 06:30 AM, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > On 08/17/2010 10:58 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: >> Dear Jerry, >> >>> OK for trunk? >> >> OK but for one tiny question: >> >> Should you not check for parentheses, just to stop the code trying to >> charge down, for example, binary operators? Since expr1 has been >> resolved already at the top of resolve_code, this should not matter - >> it's just unnecessary. >> > > I was thinking of a case like this: > > print *, (-p) > > Where p is invalid. We need to drill down to run the check on it. > I decided to try the above case and it gets caught earlier by unary operator checks so your suggestion should work well. I will regression test it and commit if OK. Jerry
Index: resolve.c =================================================================== --- resolve.c (revision 163259) +++ resolve.c (working copy) @@ -7696,7 +7696,11 @@ resolve_transfer (gfc_code *code) exp = code->expr1; - if (exp->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE && exp->expr_type != EXPR_FUNCTION) + while (exp != NULL && exp->expr_type == EXPR_OP && exp->value.op.op == INTRINSIC_PARENTHESES) + exp = exp->value.op.op1; + + if (exp == NULL || (exp->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE + && exp->expr_type != EXPR_FUNCTION)) return;
Dear Jerry, > OK for trunk? OK but for one tiny question: Should you not check for parentheses, just to stop the code trying to charge down, for example, binary operators? Since expr1 has been resolved already at the top of resolve_code, this should not matter - it's just unnecessary. eg. Thanks for the patch! Paul sym = exp->symtree->n.sym;