From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-404222-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 87703 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2015 15:38:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 87686 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2015 15:38:01 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: mail-ob0-f176.google.com
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f176.google.com) (209.85.214.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:37:56 +0000
Received: by obre1 with SMTP id e1so9994637obr.1;        Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.186.2 with SMTP id fg2mr42512104obc.35.1438184274756; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.62.130 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <12CFFDD1-93B6-49D9-834A-03B307506CC2@gmail.com>
References: <CAGkQGiJ-HQA97YRC0fSjR4KFxS=7ft8ci6YjYyO7AWGi_md+cw@mail.gmail.com>	<55B10B58.9000302@sfr.fr>	<CAGkQGi+NODX-wo+HKOf1V9nD8PHUVdH9OSU_vaDHJct20DP0Tw@mail.gmail.com>	<00370BD5-507A-42BF-9D59-E868BBAD3C94@sourceryinstitute.org>	<CAGkQGiJDdTKbBrUYa-wG4iKHM7brF8=sGT=O6-gNgEEmfo0RXQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20150729151154.GK3335@redhat.com>	<12CFFDD1-93B6-49D9-834A-03B307506CC2@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:45:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAGkQGiLLkgiaiTqhX+f6Zjeg9i6f0AtWnK-PA00L+-y+jqytmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug fortran/52846] [F2008] Support submodules - part 3/3
From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>
To: FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com>
Cc: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>, Damian Rouson <damian@sourceryinstitute.org>, 	Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@sfr.fr>, "Bader, Reinhold" <Reinhold.Bader@lrz.de>, 	"fortran@gcc.gnu.org" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 	"salvatore.filippone@uniroma2.it" <salvatore.filippone@uniroma2.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg02483.txt.bz2

Dear All,

My reply is the same as FX's. However, I am perfectly happy to
eliminate the initialization. The correct state is ensured by
gfc_dump_module.

Cheers

Paul

On 29 July 2015 at 17:31, FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do you initialize a static variable to false?
>
> You mean because false is equal to zero and it will be the default initialization anyway?
> I quite like that the default value is explicit.
>
> FX



-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx