* PING *
2016-07-21 13:05 GMT-06:00 Alessandro Fanfarillo <fanfarillo....@gmail.com>:
> Dear Mikael and all,
>
> in attachment the new patch, built and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Cheers,
> Alessandro
>
> 2016-07-20 13:17 GMT-06:00 Mikael Morin <morin-mik...@orange.fr>:
>> Le 20/07/2016 à 11:39, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi Mikael,
>>>
>>>
>>>>> + if(st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE)
>>>>> + new_st.op = EXEC_FAIL_IMAGE;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + gcc_unreachable();
>>>>
>>>> You can use
>>>> gcc_assert (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE);
>>>> foo...;
>>>> instead of
>>>> if (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE)
>>>> foo...;
>>>> else
>>>> gcc_unreachable ();
>>>
>>>
>>> Be careful, this is not 100% identical in the general case. For older
>>> gcc version (gcc < 4008) gcc_assert() is mapped to nothing, esp. not to
>>> an abort(), so the behavior can change. But in this case everything is
>>> fine, because the patch is most likely not backported.
>>>
>> Didn't know about this. The difference seems to be very subtle.
>> I don't mind much anyway. The original version can stay if preferred, this
>> was just a suggestion.
>>
>> By the way, if the function is inlined in its single caller, the assert or
>> unreachable statement can be removed, which avoids choosing between them.
>> That's another suggestion.
>>
>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return MATCH_YES;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + syntax:
>>>>> + gfc_syntax_error (st);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return MATCH_ERROR;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +match
>>>>> +gfc_match_fail_image (void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + /* if (!gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2008_TS, "FAIL IMAGE statement
>>>>> at %C")) */
>>>>> + /* return MATCH_ERROR; */
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Can this be uncommented?
>>>>
>>>>> + return fail_image_statement (ST_FAIL_IMAGE);
>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Match LOCK/UNLOCK statement. Syntax:
>>>>> LOCK ( lock-variable [ , lock-stat-list ] )
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
>>>>> b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c index 1aaf4e2..b2f5596 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
>>>>> @@ -1647,6 +1647,24 @@ trans_this_image (gfc_se * se, gfc_expr
>>>>> *expr) m, lbound));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void
>>>>> +gfc_conv_intrinsic_image_status (gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *expr)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + unsigned int num_args;
>>>>> + tree *args,tmp;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + num_args = gfc_intrinsic_argument_list_length (expr);
>>>>> + args = XALLOCAVEC (tree, num_args);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + gfc_conv_intrinsic_function_args (se, expr, args, num_args);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (flag_coarray == GFC_FCOARRAY_LIB)
>>>>> + {
>>>>
>>>> Can everything be put under the if?
>>>> Does it work with -fcoarray=single?
>>>
>>>
>>> IMO coarray=single should not generate code here, therefore putting
>>> everything under the if should to fine.
>>>
>> My point was more avoiding generating code for the arguments if they are not
>> used in the end.
>> Regarding the -fcoarray=single case, the function returns a result, which
>> can be used in an expression, so I don't think it will work without at least
>> hardcoding a fixed value as result in that case.
>> But even that wouldn't be enough, as the function wouldn't work consistently
>> with the fail image statement.
>>
>>> Sorry for the comments ...
>>>
>> Comments are welcome here, as far as I know. ;-)
>>
>> Mikael
