[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-fortran
Subject:    Re: [patch, fortran, RFC] Interchange indices for FORALL and DO CONCURRENT if profitable
From:       Steve Kargl <sgk () troutmask ! apl ! washington ! edu>
Date:       2017-10-30 20:39:54
Message-ID: 20171030203954.GA34425 () troutmask ! apl ! washington ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

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
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]