Hi Paul,
thanks for the quick review. Submitted as r229353.
Many thanks and regards,
Andre
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:04:27 +0100
Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> Yes, that's good to fix the problem. OK to commit
>
> Thanks for the rapid fix.
>
> Paul
>
> On 26 October 2015 at 11:03, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > unfortunately did my last patch create a segfault on some 32-bit
> > system. This happens because in the scalarizer the lower bound of the
> > deferred length array of the source= expression was taken to be
> > constant zero instead of taking that information from the array
> > descriptor. This patch fixes the segfault by taking the lower -- and to
> > keep it in sync also the upper -- bound from the array descriptor when
> > doing the array assign in the allocate ().
> >
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu/f21.
> >
> > Ok for trunk?
> >
> > Sorry for the regression.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:31:02 +0100
> > Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Paul, hi all,
> >>
> >> thanks for the review. Submitted as r229294.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Andre
> >>
> >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 08:43:24 +0100
> >> Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear Andre,
> >> >
> >> > As far as I can see, the problems with PR57117 are specific to RESHAPE
> >> > and need not affect committing your patch. To my surprise, the
> >> > combination of your patch and mine for PR67171 fixes PR67044 in that
> >> > the ICE no longer occurs. I have to get my head around how to write a
> >> > testcase for it that tests the functionality though!
> >> >
> >> > You can commit this patch to trunk. As I said elsewhere, I will rename
> >> > the testcase for PR67171.
> >> >
> >> > Many thanks for the patch.
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >> > On 23 October 2015 at 09:44, Paul Richard Thomas
> >> > <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Dear Andre,
> >> > >
> >> > > I will wait until you fix the problems that Dominique has pointed out.
> >> > > However, if by Sunday afternoon (rain forecast!) you haven't found the
> >> > > time, I will see if I can locate the source of these new problems.
> >> > >
> >> > > With best regards
> >> > >
> >> > > Paul
> >> > >
> >> > > On 7 October 2015 at 19:51, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >> This patch also fixes pr57117 comment 2, the original test and the
> >> > >> test in comment 3 now give an ICE
> >> > >>
> >> > >> pr57117.f90:82:0:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> allocate(z(9), source=reshape(x, (/ 9 /)))
> >> > >> 1
> >> > >> internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11
> >> > >>
> >> > >> and pr67044.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dominique
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
> >> > > too dark to read.
> >> > >
> >> > > Groucho Marx
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
>
>
>
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (Revision 229352)
+++ gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+2015-10-26 Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gcc.gnu.org>
+
+ PR fortran/66927
+ * trans-array.c (evaluate_bound): For deferred length arrays get the
+ bounds directly from the descriptor, i.e., prevent using constant
+ zero lower bound from the gfc_conv_array_lbound () routine.
+ (gfc_conv_section_startstride): Hand deferred array status to
+ evaluate_bound ().
+ (gfc_conv_expr_descriptor): Same.
+
2015-01-25 Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/67171
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (Revision 229352)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -3809,7 +3809,7 @@
static void
evaluate_bound (stmtblock_t *block, tree *bounds, gfc_expr ** values,
- tree desc, int dim, bool lbound)
+ tree desc, int dim, bool lbound, bool deferred)
{
gfc_se se;
gfc_expr * input_val = values[dim];
@@ -3824,6 +3824,17 @@
gfc_add_block_to_block (block, &se.pre);
*output = se.expr;
}
+ else if (deferred)
+ {
+ /* The gfc_conv_array_lbound () routine returns a constant zero for
+ deferred length arrays, which in the scalarizer wrecks havoc, when
+ copying to a (newly allocated) one-based array.
+ Keep returning the actual result in sync for both bounds. */
+ *output = lbound ? gfc_conv_descriptor_lbound_get (desc,
+ gfc_rank_cst[dim]):
+ gfc_conv_descriptor_ubound_get (desc,
+ gfc_rank_cst[dim]);
+ }
else
{
/* No specific bound specified so use the bound of the array. */
@@ -3864,15 +3875,19 @@
desc = info->descriptor;
stride = ar->stride[dim];
+
/* Calculate the start of the range. For vector subscripts this will
be the range of the vector. */
- evaluate_bound (block, info->start, ar->start, desc, dim, true);
+ evaluate_bound (block, info->start, ar->start, desc, dim, true,
+ ar->as->type == AS_DEFERRED);
/* Similarly calculate the end. Although this is not used in the
scalarizer, it is needed when checking bounds and where the end
is an expression with side-effects. */
- evaluate_bound (block, info->end, ar->end, desc, dim, false);
+ evaluate_bound (block, info->end, ar->end, desc, dim, false,
+ ar->as->type == AS_DEFERRED);
+
/* Calculate the stride. */
if (stride == NULL)
info->stride[dim] = gfc_index_one_node;
@@ -6965,7 +6980,8 @@
gcc_assert (n == codim - 1);
evaluate_bound (&loop.pre, info->start, ar->start,
- info->descriptor, n + ndim, true);
+ info->descriptor, n + ndim, true,
+ ar->as->type == AS_DEFERRED);
loop.from[n + loop.dimen] = info->start[n + ndim];
}
else
