Yuao Ma wrote:
And the latter does not handle EXPR_CONDITIONAL.
Thanks for the tip! It turns out that not only does gfc_traverse_expr
fail to handle conditional expressions, but check_restricted and
gfc_check_init_expr don't either. I've added all the necessary fixes,
and the test case is now in
Hi Tobias,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 11:57 PM Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Hi Yuao,
>
> Yuao Ma wrote:
> > This time I use git format-patch. Hopefully fix the issue.
>
> Seem so :-)
>
> Do I read you patch correctly that you still want to improve it
> before committing the first version? I assume so bec
Hi Yuao,
Yuao Ma wrote:
This time I use git format-patch. Hopefully fix the issue.
Seem so :-)
Do I read you patch correctly that you still want to improve it
before committing the first version? I assume so because the
changelog part of the patch is largely lacking (except for
the summary li
Hi Tobias,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 4:57 PM Tobias Burnus wrote:
> BTW: I notice '(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)'
> when applying the patch. - Spurious '\r' in committed patches should be
> avoided, albeit testcases with '\r\n' are fine as we also need to support
> th
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 6:58 PM Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Yuao Ma wrote:
> > BTW, The current trunk seems to have some problems with diagnostic
> > location: https://godbolt.org/z/bcrvn9xo4
>
> In the last days, there were some diagnostic changes; possibly
> those caused an intermittent issue?
>
> O
Hi Yuao,
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Based on our previous discussion, we
don't need to necessarily handle this in the current patch; I just
wanted to highlight it. I will investigate how the argument-passing
logic works.
Yes, as long as there is a 'sorry' instead of producing wrong code,
it is fine.
Hi Yuao,
Yuao Ma wrote:
Hi Tobias,
I have some updates about this patch.
First, some good news:
1. The patch has been bootstrapped and tested with no regressions.
This was achieved by limiting the type with only one 'sorry' case.
2. The frontend parsing now considers outer parentheses.
:-)
Hi all, hi Yuao,
Yuao Ma wrote:
I mostly agree it looks okay. While I'm not that meticulous about
diagnostics, I believe it should point to the '=' sign or the first
character of the expression. Pointing to the middle, however, seems a
bit odd.
Looking at your patch, I understand what you mean
Yuao Ma wrote:
BTW, The current trunk seems to have some problems with diagnostic
location: https://godbolt.org/z/bcrvn9xo4
In the last days, there were some diagnostic changes; possibly
those caused an intermittent issue?
Otherwise, it looks ok. Namely:
The '1' points to the space after '='i
On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 2:02 AM Yuao Ma wrote:
> 2. The diagnostic location appears to have an off-by-one error.
> Consider the diagnostic for conditional_4.f90. Ideally, I'd like
> points (1) and (2) to reference the true_expr and false_expr,
> respectively. However, the current output is odd: (1
Hi Tobias,
I have some updates about this patch.
First, some good news:
1. The patch has been bootstrapped and tested with no regressions.
This was achieved by limiting the type with only one 'sorry' case.
2. The frontend parsing now considers outer parentheses.
And we also have some unresolved
Hi Yuao,
Yuao Ma wrote:
I addressed some review comments and included additional feedback.
Thanks for the update. I know that the patch is incomplete, but as I
started with bootstrapping, I start with the following. I bet the issues
are known to you:
First, your patch does not bootstrap* h
Hi Tobias,
I addressed some review comments and included additional feedback.
On 8/22/2025 11:22 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi Yuao,
Yuao Ma wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 7/31/2025 6:02 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
That's exactly how I had a mind to do it. You beat me to it 🙁
Just get on, polish the
Hi Yuao,
Yuao Ma wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 7/31/2025 6:02 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
That's exactly how I had a mind to do it. You beat me to it 🙁
Just get on, polish the patch and add more tests.
I've updated the patch with improvements to both the functionality and
test cases. It should now
Hi Paul,
On 7/31/2025 6:02 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
That's exactly how I had a mind to do it. You beat me to it :-(
Just get on, polish the patch and add more tests.
I've updated the patch with improvements to both the functionality and
test cases. It should now work well for simple sc
Hi Yuao,
That's exactly how I had a mind to do it. You beat me to it :-(
Just get on, polish the patch and add more tests.
Thanks
Paul
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 at 15:53, Yuao Ma wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch introduces support for conditional expressions (also known as
> ternary operators in s
. Please take a look when you
have a moment.
Thanks in advance,
YuaoFrom 8b0312442ade17f64ae7c8059daa3af46a0bceda Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yuao Ma
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:38:57 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] fortran: implement conditional expression for fortran 2023
TBD
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
17 matches
Mail list logo
