On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:53:07PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
Gcc-patches wrote:
> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-04-28 Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefa...@linux.ibm.com>
>
> PR fortran/94769
> * io.c (check_io_constraints): Initialize local variable num.
> ---
> gcc/fortran/io.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/io.c b/gcc/fortran/io.c
> index e066666e01d..4526f729d1d 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/io.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/io.c
> @@ -3840,7 +3840,7 @@ if (condition) \
>
> if (dt->asynchronous)
> {
> - int num;
> + int num = 2;
> static const char * asynchronous[] = { "YES", "NO", NULL };
Just nitpicking, wouldn't -1 be more usual value?
And, I think there should be an assertion that it didn't remain -1 after the
call, above
/* For "YES", mark related symbols as asynchronous. */
do
gcc_checking (num != -1);
or so.
Note, the reason why this triggers only on s390x is the vastly different
inlining parameters the target uses, that causes a lot of headaches
everywhere.
Jakub
