Hi Harald, hi Paul,
On 13.03.21 09:58, Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran wrote:
I am not sure of the etiquette for this - it looks OK to me :-)
:-)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 21:20, Harald Anlauf via Fortran
<fort...@gcc.gnu.org>
the addition of runtime checks for the SIZE intrinsic created a regression
that showed up for certain CLASS arguments to procedures. Paul did most of
the work (~ 99%), but asked me to dig into an issue with an inappropriately
selected error message. This actually turned out to be a simple one-liner
on top of Paul's patch.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
The procedure-call patch looks good to me, except for:
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
@@ -6662,6 +6662,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol * sym,
[...]
+ tree temp;
...
- tmp = parmse.expr;
+ if (fsym && fsym->ts.type == BT_CLASS)
+ {
+ temp = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (input_location,
...
+ else
+ temp = parmse.expr;
...
- if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (parmse.expr)))
- tmp = gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE, tmp);
+ if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (temp)))
+ temp = gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE, temp);
...
- logical_type_node, tmp,
- fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (tmp),
+ logical_type_node, temp,
+ fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (temp)
I do not see any reason why 'tmp' is replaced by 'temp' in this
code. Also for doing patch archeology, it helps if there are no
changes unless it makes sense. Adding an -e- does not count ;-)
Hence, OK with that change.
* * *
Regarding the change:
gfc_conv_intrinsic_size (gfc_se * se, gfc_expr * expr)
It looks as if the pointer/check is done for
size(dt%foo%bar)
for the 'bar' component' but shouldn't it also be
done for each part ref, if it is a pointer/allocatable?
(i.e. 'dt', 'foo' and 'bar'?
That's independent of the current patch.
Additionally, as there are a lot of special cases for
CLASS – I wonder whether there also needs to be a special
case for
size(dt%foo%class)
?
In particular, the following does ICE for me:
module m
type t
class(*), pointer :: bar(:)
end type
type t2
class(t), allocatable :: my(:)
end type t2
contains
function f (x, y) result(z)
class(t) :: x(:)
class(t) :: y(size(x(1)%bar))
type(t) :: z(size(x(1)%bar))
end
function g (x) result(z)
class(t) :: x(:)
type(t) :: z(size(x(1)%bar))
end
subroutine s ()
class(t2), allocatable :: a(:), b(:), c(:), d(:)
class(t2), pointer :: p(:)
c(1)%my = f (a(1)%my, b(1)%my)
d(1)%my = g (p(1)%my)
end
end
* * *
P.S.: I couldn't find a Changelog entry that uses co-authors. Is the
version
below correct?
...
Co-authored-by: Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
I think you have two options: either the GIT way – as you did (although I think
the
GIT way usually only has one and not two spaces before the email).
I did not see it in the commit logs, but it is used in the
testcases for the change-log generator, see:
contrib/gcc-changelog/test_patches.txt
Alternative way is to specify the authors in the classical
ChangeLog style; latest real-world example is
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d656bfda2d8316627d0bbb18b10954e6aaf3c88c
but you can also look at the contrib/gcc-changelog/test_patches.txt
Finally, you can also run the script at contrib/gcc-changelog/ yourself
as pre-commit check.
For instance, if you committed but did not yet push it:
git show -1 | ./contrib/gcc-changelog/git_check_commit.py -p
to errors there, you can use 'git commit --amend' until you have
pushed that commit (then it is too late).
Tobias
