[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele  
---
(In reply to dominiq from comment #7)
> Author: dominiq
> Date: Tue Nov  3 18:03:38 2015
> New Revision: 229716


thanks... just doing this myself :-)

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

--- Comment #7 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Nov  3 18:03:38 2015
New Revision: 229716

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229716=gcc=rev
Log:
2015-11-03  Dominique d'Humieres 

PR fortran/67982
* gfortran.dg/warn_unused_function_3.f90: New test.


Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/warn_unused_function_3.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
> Committing a valid test case for something that has been fixed
> by something unknown falls under the "obviously correct" category,
> so it can be done without a review.  Just drop a mail to fortran@
> and gcc-patches@ after committing with the details.

Done. Closing.

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

Thomas Koenig  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig  ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #5)

> Let's leave it open for a while, it would be good to commit a testcase to
> trunk to make sure this doesn't regress. As it seems fixed 'accidentally'
> this might be a good idea. I might do this, even though it will take a while
> (it is a bit unfortunate that the time overhead of submitting & committing a
> patch is not small).

Committing a valid test case for something that has been fixed
by something unknown falls under the "obviously correct" category,
so it can be done without a review.  Just drop a mail to fortran@
and gcc-patches@ after committing with the details.

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele  
---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> > Otherwise this might need bisection.
> 
> Note that I cannot do easily the bissection on darwin due to a lot of
> bootstrap failures in the range r224161-r224647. If nobody volunteer to do
> the bisection, I'll close this PR as FIXED on trunk (6.0).

Let's leave it open for a while, it would be good to commit a testcase to trunk
to make sure this doesn't regress. As it seems fixed 'accidentally' this might
be a good idea. I might do this, even though it will take a while (it is a bit
unfortunate that the time overhead of submitting & committing a patch is not
small).

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
> Otherwise this might need bisection.

Note that I cannot do easily the bissection on darwin due to a lot of bootstrap
failures in the range r224161-r224647. If nobody volunteer to do the bisection,
I'll close this PR as FIXED on trunk (6.0).

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2015-10-16
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
AFAICT this has been fixed on trunk (6.0) between revisions r224160
(2015-06-05, warning) and r224647 (2015-06-19, no warning). I did not find any
obvious candidate for the fix; without it the fix cannot be back ported.

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

Joost VandeVondele  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot 
ethz
   ||.ch

--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele  
---
Maybe r224201 ? Otherwise this might need bisection.

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982

--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
> Maybe r224201 ?

It is

Author: hubicka
Date:   Sun Jun 7 21:30:58 2015 UTC (4 months, 1 week ago)
Changed paths:  13 (showing only 10; show all)
Log Message:
* alias.c (get_alias_set): Be ready for TYPE_CANONICAL
of ptr_type_node to not be ptr_to_node.
* tree.c (gimple_types_compatible_p): Do not match TREE_CODE of
TREE_TYPE of pointers.
* gimple-expr.c (useless_type_conversion): Reorder the check for
function pointers and TYPE_CANONICAL.
* lto.c (hash_canonical_type): Do not hash TREE_CODE of TREE_TYPE of
pointers.
* gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-1_0.f90: New testcase.
* gfortran.dg/lto/bind_c-1_1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_0.c: Rename to ...
* gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types-1_0.c: this one; fix template
* gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types_1.c: Rename to ...
* gcc.dg/lto/c-compatible-types-1_1.c: this one; harden for
-fshort-enum.

so I doubt it.

> Otherwise this might need bisection.

Be my guest!