On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 10:24:07PM +0100, Mikael Morin wrote: > Hello, > > Le 03/03/2023 à 20:57, Steve Kargl via Fortran a écrit : > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:03:48PM +0100, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: > > > - if (attr->class_ok) > > > - /* Class container has already been built. */ > > > + /* Class container has already been built with same name. */ > > > + if (attr->class_ok > > > + && ts->u.derived->components->attr.dimension >= attr->dimension > > > + && ts->u.derived->components->attr.codimension >= attr->codimension > > > + && ts->u.derived->components->attr.class_pointer >= attr->pointer > > > + && ts->u.derived->components->attr.allocatable >= > > > attr->allocatable) > > > > I suppose I'm a bit confused here. dimension, codimension, > > pointer and allocatable are 1-bit bitfields in the attr > > struct. These can have the values 0 and 1, so the above > > conditionals are always true. > > > as I understand it, they aren't if attr has attributes that aren't already > set in the class container's first component. > a >= b == !(a < b) and if a and b are boolean-valued, a < b == !a && b. > Admittedly, I haven't tested the logic like Harald has. >
Mikael, thanks for smacking me with the clue stick. I had to do a quick test to see the trees. % cc -o z a.c && ./z a.i = 0, b.i = 0, a.i >= b.i = 1 a.i = 1, b.i = 0, a.i >= b.i = 1 a.i = 1, b.i = 1, a.i >= b.i = 1 a.i = 0, b.i = 1, a.i >= b.i = 0 I was overlooking the last case. So, the above is an all or nothing test. -- steve
