From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48552 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2019 18:00:40 -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 48383 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jan 2019 18:00:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*RU:sk:2019011, H*i:sk:fc5fc0c, Hx-languages-length:660, H*f:sk:fc5fc0c X-HELO: mtaout001-public.msg.strl.va.charter.net Received: from mtaout001-public.msg.strl.va.charter.net (HELO mtaout001-public.msg.strl.va.charter.net) (68.114.190.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Jan 2019 18:00:25 +0000 Received: from impout002 ([68.114.189.17]) by mtaout001.msg.strl.va.charter.net (InterMail vM.9.00.023.01 201-2473-194) with ESMTP id <20190119180016.RIOV3845.mtaout001.msg.strl.va.charter.net@impout002>; Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:00:16 -0600 Received: from [192.168.1.6] ([66.191.41.128]) by impout002 with charter.net id SJ0F1z00Q2lujD601J0Gqk; Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:00:16 -0600 X-Auth-id: anZkZWxpc2xlQGNoYXJ0ZXIubmV0 Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] Fix contiguous dummy arguments To: Thomas Koenig , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches References: From: Jerry DeLisle Message-ID: Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 18:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg01130.txt.bz2 On 1/19/19 7:05 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hello world, > > the attached patch fixes handling of contiguous dummy arguments when > the actual arguments are not contiguous. > > The patch to trans-expr.c itself was written by Paul and attached to > the PR. I just added the test case.  Regression-testing revealed some > failing scan-tree tests due to different code being generated. I put > corresponding run time tests into the new test case to make sure that no > wrong code is being generated. > > I have also tested the new test case and the compiler with valgrind. > > OK for trunk? > Looks OK Jerry