http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-19
09:08:37 UTC ---
A few comments:
a) The call to delete_storage makes the code invalid in several
respects
b) This function should not have been inlined (i.e. the bug not
exposed) without the -faggressive-function-elimination flag.
c) The reason why this function call was inlined was that the
implicit_pure attribute is set on the function. This is
bogus.
/* Only eliminate potentially impure functions if the
user specifically requested it. */
if (!gfc_option.flag_aggressive_function_elimination
&& !(*e)->value.function.esym->attr.pure
&& !(*e)->value.function.esym->attr.implicit_pure)
return 0;
(gdb) p (*e)->value.function.esym->attr.pure
$8 = 0
(gdb) p (*e)->value.function.esym->attr.implicit_pure
$9 = 1
Paul, I think you introduced the implicit_pure attribute. Do
you have any idea why this could be set in this case?
