public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 21:26:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107874-4-C24u5AmcMd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107874-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107874

--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #19)
> I don't recall having seen a mentioning in the standard of the order of
> evaluation of different function (or subroutine) arguments.  Do you?

The closest I can find is the following in F2018:

C.5.1  Evaluation of function references (10.1.7)

(1) If more than one function reference appears in a statement, they can be
executed in any order (subject to a function result being evaluated after the
evaluation of its arguments) and their values cannot depend on the order of
execution. This lack of dependence on order of evaluation enables parallel
execution of the function references.


And:

A.2 Processor dependencies

According to this document, the following are processor dependent:
...
• the order of finalization of components of objects of derived type (7.5.6.2)
• the order of finalization when several objects are finalized as the
  consequence of a single event (7.5.6.2);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-02 21:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-26  4:57 [Bug fortran/107874] New: " john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz
2022-11-26 20:30 ` [Bug fortran/107874] " anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-27  1:03 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-27 20:00 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-27 21:07 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-27 21:24 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2022-11-28 20:07 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 18:19 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-01 20:28 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-01 21:36 ` jvdelisle2 at gmail dot com
2022-12-01 21:55 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-01 22:17 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-01 23:46 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-01 23:54 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02  0:34 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02 17:48 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02 19:44 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02 20:22 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02 20:50 ` john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz
2022-12-02 21:05 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02 21:26 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-12-02 21:27 ` john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz
2022-12-02 21:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-02 21:42 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-07 21:22 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-107874-4-C24u5AmcMd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).