Hi Stefan, I prefer Jakub's suggestion – his change LGTM.
Cheers, Tobias On 4/28/20 2:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:53:07PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches wrote:gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: 2020-04-28 Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefa...@linux.ibm.com> PR fortran/94769 * io.c (check_io_constraints): Initialize local variable num. --- gcc/fortran/io.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gcc/fortran/io.c b/gcc/fortran/io.c index e066666e01d..4526f729d1d 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/io.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/io.c @@ -3840,7 +3840,7 @@ if (condition) \ if (dt->asynchronous) { - int num; + int num = 2; static const char * asynchronous[] = { "YES", "NO", NULL };Just nitpicking, wouldn't -1 be more usual value? And, I think there should be an assertion that it didn't remain -1 after the call, above /* For "YES", mark related symbols as asynchronous. */ do gcc_checking (num != -1); or so. Note, the reason why this triggers only on s390x is the vastly different inlining parameters the target uses, that causes a lot of headaches everywhere. Jakub
----------------- Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) GmbH, Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München / Germany Registergericht München HRB 106955, Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Alexander Walter
