From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3816 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2017 20:40:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3636 invoked by uid 89); 30 Oct 2017 20:39:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=30pm, 30PM, realize X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: troutmask.apl.washington.edu Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (HELO troutmask.apl.washington.edu) (128.95.76.21) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:39:58 +0000 Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id v9UKdtId034433 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:39:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v9UKdsQV034432; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:39:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:50:00 -0000 From: Steve Kargl To: Thomas Koenig Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [patch, fortran, RFC] Interchange indices for FORALL and DO CONCURRENT if profitable Message-ID: <20171030203954.GA34425@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Reply-To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu References: <6f2efdb3-c45d-18c7-0b0e-89e91ab32eb4@netcologne.de> <20171027223858.GA26282@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg02252.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 01:23:30PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi Steve, > > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >> +/* Callback function to determine if an expression is the > >> + corresponding variable. */ > >> + > >> +static int > > static bool > > Most of the functions in the patch are callback functions for > gfc_code_walker or gfc_expr_walker, respectively. Their > function arguments are given as > > typedef int (*walk_code_fn_t) (gfc_code **, int *, void *); > typedef int (*walk_expr_fn_t) (gfc_expr **, int *, void *); > > respectively, so the types of the functions are fixed. > Whoops, I didn't realize that the prototypes were related to being call back functions. I noticed the functions were declared as int, but only returned a single value of 0. In any event, if you have already applied the patch, it looks ok to me. -- Steve