On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear in an
EQUIVALENCE statement. However its counterpart, STATIC, can be used in
an EQUIVALENCE statement.
Where there is a clear conflict in the attributes of variables in an
EQUIVALENCE statement an error message will be issued as is currently
the case.
If there is no conflict e.g. a variable with a AUTOMATIC attribute and a
variable(s) without attributes all variables in the EQUIVALENCE will
become AUTOMATIC.
Note: most of this patch was written by Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>
Please review.
ChangeLogs:
gcc/fortran
Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>
Mark Eggleston <mark.eggles...@codethink.com>
* gfortran.h: Add check_conflict declaration.
This is wrong. By convention a routine that is not static
has the gfc_ prefix.
Furthermore doesn't this export indicate that you're committing a
layering violation somehow?
Possibly. I'm the original author, but my experience in our fortran
front-end is minimal. I fully expected this patch to need some tweaking.
We certainly don't want to recreate all the checking that's done in
check_conflict. We just need to defer it to a later point --
find_equivalence seemed like a good point since we've got the full
equivalence list handy and can accumulate the attributes across the
entire list, then check for conflicts.
If there's a concrete place where you think we should be doing this, I'm
all ears.
Any suggestions will be appreciate.
* symbol.c (check_conflict): Remove automatic in equivalence conflict
check.
* symbol.c (save_symbol): Add check for in equivalence to stop the
the save attribute being added.
* trans-common.c (build_equiv_decl): Add is_auto parameter and
add !is_auto to condition where TREE_STATIC (decl) is set.
* trans-common.c (build_equiv_decl): Add local variable is_auto,
set it true if an atomatic attribute is encountered in the variable
atomatic? I read atomic but you mean automatic.
Yes.
list. Call build_equiv_decl with is_auto as an additional parameter.
flag_dec_format_defaults is enabled.
* trans-common.c (accumulate_equivalence_attributes) : New subroutine.
* trans-common.c (find_equivalence) : New local variable dummy_symbol,
accumulated equivalence attributes from each symbol then check for
conflicts.
I'm just curious why you don't gfc_copy_attr for the most part of
accumulate_equivalence_attributes?
thanks,
Simply didn't know about it. It could probably significantly simplify
the accumulation of attributes step.
Using gfc_copy_attr causes a great many "Duplicate DIMENSION attribute
specified at (1)" errors. This is because there is a great deal of
checking done instead of simply keeping track of the attributes used
which is all that is required for determining whether there is a
conflict in the equivalence statement.
Also, the final section of accumulate_equivalence_attributes involving
SAVE, INTENT and ACCESS look suspect to me. I'll check and update the
patch if necessary.
Jeff
--
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
