https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #35 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> gfc_warning(OPT_Wsurprising, "Impure function %qs at %L may not be
> evaluated", ...)
I am perfectly happy with the short-circuit evaluation and I don't want any
warning when I use -Wall.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #33 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:23:41PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
>
> --- Comment #32 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #32 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #31)
> > This PR is not about reordering, but about short-circuiting.
>
> AFAICT this PR is about a function with side-effects,
> and re-ordering can have an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #31 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > The order of the evaluation of ping() and pong() is
> > not specified by the Fortran standard.
>
> This PR is not about reorde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
eth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #29 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #27)
> > If an impure function is found (recursively) in the operands of an .AND.
> > expression, issue a
> >
> > gfc_warning(OPT_Wsurprising, "Impure funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Priority|P3
