https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=57160
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> Am I mistaken to read this as being handled by the middle-end?
The short-circuiting is finally handled by the middle end, since the front end
translates .and. into &&. See also comment 6.
Apparently the standard does neither require nor forbid the short-circuiting
(see c.l.f. discussion), but I would argue that it would be a more reasonable
for gfortran to avoid the short-circuiting (by translating to &), at least if
it is not clear whether the function has side effects.
> If yes, the
> situation is discussed in pr57160 comment 1.
Right, this PR is very much related.
> Does it means that 'check' has to be evaluated in
>
> if (flag) flag = check ()
>
> even if flag==.false. ?
No, I'm pretty sure that is not the case.
