--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-22 17:55 ---
Subject: Bug 28439
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jul 22 17:55:35 2006
New Revision: 115677
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=115677
Log:
2006-07-22 Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-21 23:39 ---
The definition of gfc_evaluate_now is:
trans.h:tree gfc_evaluate_now (tree, stmtblock_t *);
And the effect of adding se.pre is to add the code to the block. You can see
this going on everywhere in gfortran with a
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-22 02:01 ---
Steven,
I believe you're correct. I misread your patch where I thought
you were replacing the line above the one you added. Sorry about
the noise. I'll test and commit the patch.
--
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 20:33 ---
Yep. The dump-tree-original contains
if (myfunc (C.1243) = 0)
{
if (myfunc (C.1243) 0) goto __label_10;
else goto __label_20;
}
else
{
goto
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 23:03 ---
Wrong code. Bad.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 23:06 ---
The easiest way to fix this is most likely wrap the function call in a
SAVE_EXPR but I could be wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28439
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 23:08 ---
Andrew, you're wrong. :-P
My gfortran skills are not what they used to be, but I believe this is the fix:
Index: trans-stmt.c
===
--- trans-stmt.c
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-20 04:37 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
My gfortran skills are not what they used to be,
You're always welcomed to spend some quality time with the
gfortran source code :-)
but I believe this is the fix:
Index: trans-stmt.c
