From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1017 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2006 19:59:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 993 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2006 19:59:06 -0000 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20061001195906.992.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/29284] [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE for optional subroutine argument In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #5 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-10-01 19:59 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE for optional subroutine argument Dear All, >PS: Just curious.. >Why isn't this part of gfc_conv_function_call() coded to check for fsym once >and only then have the additional checks? > >if (fsym) > { > CHECKS_NOT_INVOLVING_e; > if (e) > { > CHECK_e_STUFF; > } > } > >It doesn't look like the order of most of these is significant since very >different things are checked, so there should be no risk in writing this in a >sleek manner. > > > > ...because it grew like Topsy. An occasion was always going to occur, like now, when it would get rationlised. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29284