From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118929 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2015 12:25:38 -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 118846 invoked by uid 89); 7 Apr 2015 12:25:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: smtp23.services.sfr.fr Received: from smtp23.services.sfr.fr (HELO smtp23.services.sfr.fr) (93.17.128.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:25:36 +0000 Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [86.72.15.254]) by msfrf2314.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 83C2F700010A; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 14:25:33 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: sfrmc.priv.atos.fr; dkim=none (no signature); dkim-adsp=none (no policy) header.from=mikael.morin@sfr.fr Received: from tolstoi.localhost (254.15.72.86.rev.sfr.net [86.72.15.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by msfrf2314.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A0DB97000105; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 14:25:32 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20150407122532658.A0DB97000105@msfrf2314.sfr.fr Message-ID: <5523CCB0.5090707@sfr.fr> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:25:00 -0000 From: Mikael Morin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evangelos Drikos , fortran@gcc.gnu.org CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: pr59016 References: <5522CFEC.4070802@sfr.fr> In-Reply-To: <5522CFEC.4070802@sfr.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 Le 06/04/2015 20:26, Mikael Morin a écrit : > Regarding the patch, I don't understand why the existing symbol > restoration code doesn't work here (see > gfc_restore_last_undo_checkpoint, restore_old_symbol). I have to > investigate more. I think the problem is the usage of gfc_find_symbol in gfc_match_decl_type_spec. In opposition to the gfc_get_* family of functions, the gfc_find_* functions don't version symbols, so that changes made to the symbol are not thrown away when the statement is rejected. Mikael