Hi Harald, The invalid testcase is posted as PR116543. I plan to hit PDTs in the second half of September, when daytime work will lighten up a bit.
Cheers Paul On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 17:28, Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Am 30.08.24 um 18:09 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas: > > Hi Harald, > > > > The patch is good for mainline. > > > > The PDT testcase is invalid because the component has a fixed length > > initializer, while its length is a len parameter. One of the fixes that I > > will have to do in the PDT revamp. Ignore it for now. > > duh, another invalid testcase in the testsuite! > Thanks for checking and pointing this out. > > And indeed, after renaming .f03 -> .f90, I see that Intel and NAG > agree with you. > > > Thanks for the patch. > > Pushed as r15-3323-gb222122d4e93de . > > Thanks for the review! > > Harald > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 21:30, Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> the attached, rather simple patch adds the missing > default-initialization > >> of non-pointer, non-allocatable derived-type function results. > >> > >> Regtested ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, but needed two adjustments in the > >> testsuite. One of them is easily explained by the fix, but the other > >> one to gfortran.dg/pdt_26.f03 makes me scratch my head. > >> > >> The patch adds default-initialization and thus changes the count of > >> __builtin_malloc in the tree dump, but not the __builtin_free count. > >> > >> Running the testcase under valgrind shows that no memleak occurs at > >> -O1 and higher, but I get a minor leak at -O0 and -Og. > >> > >> The dump tree is the same at -O0 and -O1, which is nice. > >> > >> Any suggestions how to proceed? > >> > >> And is the patch OK for mainline? The PDT implementation may have > >> latent issues, but that is just a guess. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Harald > >> > >> > > > >
