Hi Mikael,
Do we actually want to backport this? Technically, it is a regression,
but people are not likely to notice much.
It is not an ICE, neither a code correctness issue as far as I can see,
so I would rather not backport.
Fine with me.
+ case GFC_DEP_FORWARD:
+ return 0;
This is doubtfull, but not worse than before I guess.
0 in this case means that you need no array temporary. This is fine.
+ case GFC_DEP_BACKWARD:
+ return 1;
+
+ case GFC_DEP_OVERLAP:
+ return 1;
+
+ case GFC_DEP_NODEP:
+ return 0;
+
+ case GFC_DEP_ERROR:
+ return 0;
Can we put a gcc_unreachable here instead?
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;
(In other words, if you put a gcc_unreachable there, you get
regressions.).
I can add a comment that this is intentional.
+
same here, make it unreachable please.
OK with this and the other unreachable change above.
So, OK with a comment why this appears? Or should I simply
rename GFC_DEP_ERROR to GFC_DEP_NODEPFOUND to make this a bit
clearer?
Regards
Thomas
