From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19075 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2009 16:22:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 18964 invoked by uid 48); 13 Dec 2009 16:22:30 -0000 Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20091213162230.18963.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/41298] wrong-code: Default initializer C_NULL_PTR ignored In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg01289.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-13 16:22 ------- While looking at this one, I found two oddities: * There are two similar special-case handlers for ISOCBINDING_NULL_[FUN]PTR, one in trans-expr.c(gfc_conv_initializer), the other in trans-const.c (gfc_conv_constant). They may be redundant? * Both these checks create a 'gfc_int_expr(0)' as replacement value, wouldn't a 'null_pointer_node' be technically more correct? I'm out of this one, trans-* is dark magic *uhhh* -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot | |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41298