===================================================================
@@ -295,16 +295,16 @@ cfe_expr_0 (gfc_expr **e, int *walk_subtrees,
gfc_expr_walker (e, cfe_register_funcs, NULL);
- /* Walk backwards through all the functions to make sure we
- catch the leaf functions first. */
- for (i=expr_count-1; i>=1; i--)
+ /* Walk through all the functions. */
+
+ for (i=1; i<expr_count; i++)
{
/* Skip if the function has been replaced by a variable already. */
if ((*(expr_array[i]))->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE)
continue;
newvar = NULL;
- for (j=i-1; j>=0; j--)
+ for (j=0; j<i; j++)
{
if (gfc_dep_compare_functions(*(expr_array[i]),
*(expr_array[j]), true) == 0)
Hello world, I have committed the attached patch to trunk as obvious after regression-testing. The problem was that the assignment statements had been added in the wrong order, which was fixed by reversing the order of the loops looking for common function calls in cfe_expr_0. Many thanks to Joost for finding the bug in the first place and for reducing that far! Thomas 2011-04-04 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org> PR fortran/48412 * frontend-passes (cfe_expr_0): Reverse the order of going through the loops. 2011-04-04 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org> PR fortran/48412 * function_optimize_4.f90: New test. ! { dg-do run } ! { dg-options "-O" } ! PR 48412 - function elimination got temporary varibles in the wrong order. ! Test case contributed by Joost VandeVondele. INTEGER FUNCTION S1(m,ma,lx) INTEGER :: m,ma,lx IF (((m < 0).AND.(MODULO(ABS(ma-lx),2) == 1)).OR.& ((m > 0).AND.(MODULO(ABS(ma-lx),2) == 0))) THEN S1=1 ELSE S1=0 ENDIF END FUNCTION INTEGER :: s1 IF (S1(1,2,1).NE.0) CALL ABORT() END