[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2010-07-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 15:09 --- Should be fixed now for 4.6+. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2010-07-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 07:53 --- Subject: Bug 40206 Author: jakub Date: Thu Jul 15 07:52:51 2010 New Revision: 162209 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162209 Log: PR fortran/40206 * trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_charac

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2009-05-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-20 14:32 --- For all involved strings being non-array CHAR with length 1 I fail to see why normal SWITCH_EXPR isn't used instead (though that would just be an optimization). The middle-end can't know the _gfortran_select_string fu

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2009-05-20 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-20 14:14 --- The FE should use a default label for the last case in the switch stmt. I also think the FE does premature optimization here, but ... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40206

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2009-05-20 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-20 13:40 --- switch (case_num.1) { case 1 ... 1:; case 2 ... 2:; __result_char2type = 1; goto L.1; case 0 ... 0:; __result_char2type = -1234; goto L.1; } Wou

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2009-05-20 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-20 13:12 --- (In reply to comment #2) > I'd suspect this to be a related to Jakub's recent changes applied for PR39666 > (i.e. r147136)? Does your testcase work for r147135? > On the contrary, I think this is a missed testcase fro

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2009-05-20 Thread martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de
--- Comment #3 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2009-05-20 13:03 --- (In reply to comment #2) > I'd suspect this to be a related to Jakub's recent changes applied for PR39666 > (i.e. r147136)? Does your testcase work for r147135? I cannot check this quickly. However I tried w

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2009-05-20 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-20 12:48 --- I'd suspect this to be a related to Jakub's recent changes applied for PR39666 (i.e. r147136)? Does your testcase work for r147135? -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug fortran/40206] [gfortran] Incorrect warning with -Wuninitialized

2009-05-20 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-20 12:43 --- The dump is the following. gfortran_select_string returns only 0, 1, or 2, but the middle end does not know this. Manuel, do you have an idea how to solve this? case_num.1 = _gfortran_select_string ((void *) &ju