------- Comment #9 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-26 12:59 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Created an attachment (id=12476) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12476&action=view) [edit] > untested proposed fix > > I hope to test this patch soon.
bootstrapped and regtested with no additional regression on i686-linux-gnu. > > Note that it adds a warning about blank common in block data but -- unlike the > patch in the previous comment -- does accept the common instead of abandoning > it via goto cleanup. Please advise if not cleaning this up is acceptable or if > blank commons should be ignored there. The symbol needs to be retained, AFAIU. With the proposed patch, we have: $ nm blockdata_2.o 00000004 C __BLNK__ 00000000 B __BLOCK_DATA__ U _gfortran_set_std 00000000 T MAIN__ > > fortran/ChangeLog: > 2006-10-22 Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > PR fortran/29537 > * trans-common.c (gfc_trans_common): For unnamed block data the > proc_name is null, so use the locus of the common. > (gfc_sym_mangled_common_id): Fix whitespace. > * match.c (gfc_match_common): Emit warning about blank common in > block data. Rephrasing to * trans-common.c (gfc_trans_common): If the blank common is in a procedure or program without a name then proc_name is null, so use the locus of the common. > testsuite/ChangeLog: > 2006-10-22 Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > PR fortran/29537 > * blockdata_1.f90: Add warning about blank common in block data. > * blockdata_2.f90: New testcase. > -- aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |patch http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29537