https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Part of the patch in comment #16 was committed as r219676 for PR 58023.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have run my tests with the patch in comment #17. As expected it fixes
pr58023#c1, but it also remove the duplicate error in pr43591.f90 and
pr43591.f90:15.55:
integer, dimension(physical%numbe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 30645
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30645&action=edit
Test showing a spectacular improvement with both patches
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 30642
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30642&action=edit
Differences between the errors printed with patches 30629 and 30633
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
In what follows "Janus' patch" will refer to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30629
and "Mikael's patch" to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30633
Although there are still du
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30630|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|janus at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to janus from comment #13)
> > > Well, the advantage of my original patch is obviously that it not only
> > > avoids the double errors, but it also prevents us from doing double the
> > > work
> > >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> > IMHO it is probably not worth the hassle. I wouldn't like to do this without
> > having a concrete reason for it (and with a clean testsuite I don't s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 30630
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30630&action=edit
Janus' patch with void functions
(In reply to janus from comment #11)
> IMHO it is probably not worth the hassle.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #10)
> > Do you have a simple idea how to improve the patch in this regard?
> The first one that comes to mind (beyond changing the return type to void)
> is c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to janus from comment #9)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> > > @@ -11962,6 +11957,10 @@ resolve_fl_derived0 (gfc_symbol *sym)
> > >gfc_symbol* super_type;
> > >gfc_component *c;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> > @@ -11962,6 +11957,10 @@ resolve_fl_derived0 (gfc_symbol *sym)
> >gfc_symbol* super_type;
> >gfc_component *c;
> >
> > + if (sym->resolved>1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> The following draft patch does exactly this and gets the error count down to
> one for comment 1 and down to two for comment 1 and 4:
The remaining duplication
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> To get rid of all of them, I would propose to use the gfc_symbol.resolved
> field (this is already done for ordinary symbols in 'resolve_symbol'). For
> derived
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> For another example, see PR 51945. In this case, the double resolution seems
> to be related to the default initialization.
Here is a reduced test case from thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|extended derived types are |derived types are resolved
19 matches
Mail list logo
