On 5/27/25 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
On 5/27/25 21:02, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:35 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:01 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
Am 20.05.25 um 05:23 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/19/25 1:50 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
so contrary to what the name of patch claims (pr120049-final.diff),
it fixes only the case of direct use of iso_c_binding, but not the
indirect one thru the other module, which is the reason for the
original ICE and the PR.
So if you want to push the incremental patch now, go ahead.
Cheers,
Harald
Am 18.05.25 um 23:46 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/18/25 2:34 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/18/25 2:10 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I found 2 corner invalid cases which are silently accepted with
your patch when iso_c_binding is used indirectly:
print *, c_associated(c_loc(val), C_NULL_FUNPTR)
print *, c_associated(C_NULL_FUNPTR, c_loc(val))
These should get rejected, too. Can you see how to catch
these, too?
Thanks,
Harald
Yes, will do! I try to think of cases to run through on. This
helps.
Thanks,
Jerry
--- snip ---
Attached is the revised patch to fix the additional test cases. I
had to do some trial and error to get the testsuite directives to
work the way they should.
One will notice that the file containing the gtk_sup module is
simplified and gets taken care of with the directives in the
specific tests.
Regression tested on x86_64.
OK for trunk?
No, not yet. It rejects too much (consistently). Consider:
Harald,
Please try the new and improved patch attached.
It does pass regression testing with your addition cases and updated
the test for gfortran.dg.
Let me know if OK.
Yes, this looks OK now. I haven't found other simple ways to break it.
Thanks for the patch! And for bearing my review and comments...
Harald
Regards,
Jerry
In all honesty, I am truly grateful for your comments. I realized today
that I have been working gfortran for about 20 years now.
Pondering things, all is good.
Jerry
