Hi Harald,
I don't believe that a memory leak is possible since tmp is only
non-null if it points to an existing symbol. I agree with you about
the style but have to plead innocence because I am not the author :-)
I will change it though.
Thanks for the nit, Steve.
Pushed as r14-2397-g9a2eab6172
On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 03:23:31PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> The attached patch incorporates two of Steve's "Orphaned Patches" -
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-June/059423.html
Thanks Paul for picking up the pieces I left behind.
A few nits below.
> They have in common th
Hi Paul,
thanks for taking this.
I have just a minor comment regards coding style:
+ if (tmp
+ && tmp->attr.generic
+ && (tmp = gfc_find_dt_in_generic (tmp)))
+ {
+ if (tmp->attr.flavor == FL_DERIVED)
The attached patch incorporates two of Steve's "Orphaned Patches" -
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-June/059423.html
They have in common that they both involve faults in use of default
type and that I was the ultimate cause of the bugs.
The patch regtests with the attached testcases.
Hi Mikael,
Am 08.07.23 um 14:07 schrieb Mikael Morin:
here is what I'm finally coming to. This patch fixes my example, but is
otherwise untested.
The patch has grown enough that I'm tempted to fix my example
separately, in its own commit.
alright. I've interpreted this as a green light for v
Hello,
Le 07/07/2023 à 20:23, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
Am 07.07.23 um 14:21 schrieb Mikael Morin:
I'm attaching what I have (lightly) tested so far, which doesn't work.
It seems gfc_conv_class_to_class reevaluates part of the original
expression, which is not correct after deallocati
Hi Harald,
This is indeed obvious :-)
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 19:32, Harald Anlauf via Fortran
wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I intend to commit the attached obvious patch within 24h unless
> someone objects. gfc_compare_expr() did not handle the case of
> complex constants
