Hi Harald,
You were absolutely right about returning 'false' :-) The patch is duly
corrected.
Committed to mainline and will be followed by backports in a few weeks.
Regards
Paul
On Tue, 21 May 2024 at 19:58, Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am 20.05.24 um 11:06 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I don't think that this PR is really a regression although the fact that
> it
> > is marked as such brought it to my attention :-)
> >
> > The fix turned out to be remarkably simple. It was found after going
> down a
> > silly number of rabbit holes, though!
> >
> > The chunk in dependency.cc is probably more elaborate than it needs to
> be.
> > Returning -2 is sufficient for the testcase to work. Otherwise, the
> > comments in the patch say it all.
>
> this part looks OK, but can you elaborate on this change to expr.cc:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc
> index c883966646c..4ee2ad55915 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc
> @@ -3210,6 +3210,11 @@ gfc_reduce_init_expr (gfc_expr *expr)
> {
> bool t;
>
> + /* It is far too early to resolve a class compcall. Punt to
> resolution. */
> + if (expr && expr->expr_type == EXPR_COMPCALL
> + && expr->symtree->n.sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS)
> + return true;
> +
>
> I would have expected to return 'false' here, as we do not
> have an expression that reduces to a constant. What am I
> missing?
>
> (The testcase compiles and works here also when using 'false'.)
>
> > OK for mainline? I will delay for a month before backporting.
>
> OK if can you show me wrong...
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
> > Regards
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
>
