------- Comment #6 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:40 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Created an attachment (id=17016) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016&action=view) [edit] > > fix > > > > Does anyone know the use of the block variable I remove in this patch? > > > > Yes indeed. When I wrote this function, this block of code needed to be > merged > as the comments says: > /* Generate the temporary. Merge the block so that the > declarations are put at the right binding level. */ > > The second sentence needs to go in your patch:-) > > What I have no recall of is why the block had to be merged. I believe that it > was conditional on the intent of the argument.
That's not what I was asking, sorry. I'll try to be clearer. The block variable seems to hold nothing. 271 gfc_start_block (&block); 272 tmp = gfc_typenode_for_spec (&e->ts); 273 tmp = gfc_trans_create_temp_array (&se->pre, &se->post, 274 &tmp_loop, info, tmp, 275 false, true, false); 276 gfc_add_modify_expr (&se->pre, size, tmp); 277 tmp = fold_convert (pvoid_type_node, info->data); 278 gfc_add_modify_expr (&se->pre, data, tmp); 279 gfc_merge_block_scope (&block); The above is your initial commit. As gfc_trans_create_temp_array is putting his code in se->pre and se->post, it looks like no code goes to the block variable which is useless then. Or do I miss something? This is largely off-topic though. It is just something I wondered when I looked at the code. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
