Re: [PATCH] fortran: Fix a pasto in gfc_check_dependency

2024-08-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:03:39PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote: > Le 01/08/2024 à 12:00, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : > > Hi! > > > > A static analyzer found what seems like a pasto in the PR45019 changes, > > the second branch of || only accesses sym2 while the first one sym1 except > > for this one spo

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Fix a pasto in gfc_check_dependency

2024-08-02 Thread Tobias Burnus
[static analyzer] Jakub Jelinek wrote: […] it is some proprietary static analyzer I want to point out that a under utilized static analyzer keeps scanning GCC: Coverity Scan. If someone has the time, I think it would be worthwhile to have a look at the reports. There are a bunch of persons

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Support optional dummy as BACK argument of MINLOC/MAXLOC.

2024-08-02 Thread Mikael Morin
Le 01/08/2024 à 21:02, Thomas Koenig a écrit : Hi Mikael, +  gcc_assert (backexpr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE); drop it, downgrade to checking, or is it worth? Whether it is worth it, I don't know; it's protecting the access to backexpr->symtree a few lines down, idependently of the imp

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Fix a pasto in gfc_check_dependency

2024-08-02 Thread Mikael Morin
Le 02/08/2024 à 10:12, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:03:39PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote: Le 01/08/2024 à 12:00, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : Hi! A static analyzer found what seems like a pasto in the PR45019 changes, the second branch of || only accesses sym2 while the first one

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Fix a pasto in gfc_check_dependency

2024-08-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote: > > But the function actually returns 0 rather than 1 that PR45019 meant. > > So I bet in addition to fixing the pasto we should move that conditional > > from where it is right now to the return 0; location after > > check_data_pointer_

Re: [PATCH] fortran: Fix a pasto in gfc_check_dependency

2024-08-02 Thread Mikael Morin
Le 02/08/2024 à 17:05, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote: But the function actually returns 0 rather than 1 that PR45019 meant. So I bet in addition to fixing the pasto we should move that conditional from where it is right now to the return 0;

[Patch, Fortran] PR104626 ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.cc:1071

2024-08-02 Thread Jerry D
Hi all, Doing some catchup here. I plan to commit the following shortly. This is one of Steve's patches posted on bugzilla. I have created a new test case. Regression tested on linux x86-64. git show: commit 4d4549937b789afe4037c2f8f80dfc2285504a1e (HEAD -> master) Author: Steve Kargl Date