From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102172 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2018 18:34:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 102154 invoked by uid 89); 6 Aug 2018 18:34:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*u:1.3.6, H*UA:1.3.6 X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Aug 2018 18:34:57 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w76IYpKK032634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:34:55 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 19E7F1EF36; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D534A1E183; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:34:47 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 18:34:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Richard Bunt Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, nd@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Logical short circuiting with Fortran argument lists In-Reply-To: <9972887c-0dab-aef3-db1f-0e2323085dc7@arm.com> References: <20f669fe-9f31-fd39-9c3e-f2e1835576c6@arm.com> <002f6b4fc45a24efb3ce3582dcecdad0@polymtl.ca> <9972887c-0dab-aef3-db1f-0e2323085dc7@arm.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On 2018-08-06 12:35, Richard Bunt wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Many thanks for the review. > > To clarify, do you observe the test passing with no changes to eval.c > or > just when the additions are applied? I mean that I saw the test passing only with the first hunk applied (the one that adds code). > If the former is the case, may I ask which compiler are you using? I > have retested with 953473375500 and I see 13 tests fail without the > additions. If it's the latter, the deletions are not strictly needed > but > my analysis determined that this code was unreachable after this patch. > > My analysis consisted of checking for regressions in the test suite (of > which there were none) and examining all uses of noside from the new > early termination to eval_call in TYPE_CODE_FUNC. There are no > assignments and it's passed to all functions by value. Ah indeed, I read it wrong the first time. I thought that the second hunk was in a totally different case of the main switch (handling of a different OP_*. But now I see that this is all under the "OP_F77_UNDETERMINED_ARGLIST" case, and that we'll never reach the bottom part with "noside == EVAL_SKIP". It LGTM then. Simon