Le 18/07/2016 à 22:20, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
Am 18.07.2016 um 20:58 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Unfortunately not. The original code (before I lifted out the
functionality) sometimes had GFC_DEP_ERROR at the end of the
function, which was then removed by
return fin_dep == GFC_DEP_OVERLAP;
That is very strange, there is an assert just a few lines before, that
fin_dep != GFC_DEP_ERROR.
This is not the only return statement.
For example, look at
@@ -2215,7 +2268,7 @@ gfc_dep_resolver (gfc_ref *lref, gfc_ref *rref, gf
/* Exactly matching and forward overlapping ranges don't cause a
dependency. */
if (fin_dep < GFC_DEP_BACKWARD)
- return 0;
+ return fin_dep;
A GFC_DEP_ERROR could 'escape' here.
Indeed, I missed that one.
Then handle the GFC_DEP_ERROR here. Or initialize fin_dep with
GFC_DEP_NODEP at the beginning, as you prefer.
OK with either (and the unreachable assertions).
Having an invalid enum value equals to zero helps diagnosing
uninitialized values, so I prefer keeping the GFC_DEP_ERROR value
separate from GFC_DEP_NODEP, GFC_DEP_NODEPFOUND, or any other case.
