On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:54 AM Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:04 AM Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Harald,
> >
> > thank you very much for ok'ing this large patch. Merged as
> > gcc-15-1965-ge4f2f46e015
> >
> > Looking forward to get (no) bug reports ;-)
>
> This seems to break bootstrap with
>
> ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc: In function ‘void
> gfc_conv_array_paramete (gfc_se*, gfc_expr*, bool, const gfc_symbol*,
> const char*, tree_node**, tree_node**, tree_node**)’:
> ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc:9135:41: error: ‘pack_attr’ may
> be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> 9135 | tmp = build_call_expr_loc (input_location,
> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 9136 |
> gfor_fndecl_in_unpack_class, 4, tmp,
> |
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 9137 | packedptr,
> | ~~~~~~~~~~
> 9138 | size_in_bytes
> (TREE_TYPE (ctree)),
> |
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 9139 | pack_attr);
> | ~~~~~~~~~~
> ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc:8665:8: note: ‘pack_attr’ was declared
> here
> 8665 | tree pack_attr;
> | ^~~~~~~~~
> cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
> make[3]: *** [Makefile:1198: fortran/trans-array.o] Error 1
It seems to be a false positive but GCCs little mind is too weak to prove that
(yes, we error on the side of emitting a diagnostic if we can't prove it's
initialized)
Richard.
>
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Andre
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:52:37 +0200
> > Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andre,
> > >
> > > Am 10.07.24 um 10:45 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
> > > > Hi Harald,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for the review. I totally agree, that this patch has gotten
> > > > bigger than I expected (and wanted). But things are as they are.
> > > >
> > > > About the coding style: I have worked in so many projects, that I
> > > > consider a consistent coding style luxury. I esp. do not have my
> > > > own one anymore. The formating you are seeing in my patches is the
> > > > result of clang-format with the provided parameter file in
> > > > contrib/clang-format. I was happy to have a tool to do the
> > > > formatting, that I could integrate into my IDE, because previously
> > > > it was hard to mimic the GNU style. I try to get to the GNU style
> > > > as good as possible, where I consider clang-format doing garbage.
> > > >
> > > > I see that clang-format has a "very specific opinion" on how to
> > > > format the lines you mentioned, but it will "correct" them any time
> > > > I change them and touch them later. I now have forbidden
> > > > clang-format to touch the code lines, but this means to add
> > > > formatter specific comments. Is this ok?
> > >
> > > yes, this is much better now! Thanks.
> > >
> > > (I entirely rely on Emacs' formatting when working with C. Sometimes
> > > the indentation at first may appear unexpected, but in most of these
> > > cases I find that it helps to just use explicit parentheses to
> > > convince Emacs. This is documented.)
> > >
> > > > About the assumed size arrays, that was a small change and is added
> > > > now.
> > >
> > > Great!
> > >
> > > > Note, the runtime part of the patch (pr96992_3p1.patch) did not
> > > > change and is therefore not updated.
> > > >
> > > > Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/Fedora 39. Ok for mainline?
> > >
> > > Yes, this is OK now.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch and your patience ;-)
> > >
> > > Harald
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Andre
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 22:10:16 +0200
> > > > Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Andre,
> > > >>
> > > >> Am 03.07.24 um 12:58 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
> > > >>> Hi Harald,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am sorry for the long delay, but fixing the negative stride
> > > >>> lead from one issue to the next. I finally got a version that
> > > >>> does not regress. Please have a look.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This patch has two parts:
> > > >>> 1. The runtime library part in pr96992_3p1.patch and
> > > >>> 2. the compiler changes in pr96992_3p2.patch.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In my branch also the two patches from Paul for pr59104 and
> > > >>> pr102689 are living, which might lead to small shifts during
> > > >>> application of the patches.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> NOTE, this patch adds internal packing and unpacking of class
> > > >>> arrays similar to the regular pack and unpack. I think this is
> > > >>> necessary, because the regular un-/pack does not use the vptr's
> > > >>> _copy routine for moving data and therefore may produce bugs.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The un-/pack_class routines are yet only used for converting a
> > > >>> derived type array to a class array. Extending their use when a
> > > >>> UN-/PACK() is applied on a class array is still to be done (as
> > > >>> part of another PR).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regtests fine on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/ Fedora 39.
> > > >>
> > > >> this is a really huge patch to review, and I am not sure that I
> > > >> can do this without help from others. Paul? Anybody else?
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as I can tell for now:
> > > >>
> > > >> - pr96992_3p1.patch (the libgfortran part) looks good to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> - git had some whitespace issues with pr96992_3p2.patch as
> > > >> attached, but I could fix that locally and do some testing
> > > >> parallel to reading.
> > > >>
> > > >> A few advance comments on the latter patch:
> > > >>
> > > >> - my understanding is that the PR at the end of a summary line
> > > >> should be like in:
> > > >>
> > > >> Fortran: Fix rejecting class arrays of different ranks as storage
> > > >> association argument [PR96992]
> > > >>
> > > >> I was told that this helps people explicitly scanning for the
> > > >> PR number in that place.
> > > >>
> > > >> - some rewrites of logical conditions change the coding style from
> > > >> what it recommended GNU coding style, and I find the more
> > > >> compact way used in some places harder to grok (but that may be
> > > >> just me). Example:
> > > >>
> > > >> @@ -8850,20 +8857,24 @@ gfc_conv_array_parameter (gfc_se * se,
> > > >> gfc_expr
> > > >> * expr, bool g77,
> > > >> /* There is no need to pack and unpack the array, if it is
> > > >> contiguous and not a deferred- or assumed-shape array, or if it is
> > > >> simply contiguous. */
> > > >> - no_pack = ((sym && sym->as
> > > >> - && !sym->attr.pointer
> > > >> - && sym->as->type != AS_DEFERRED
> > > >> - && sym->as->type != AS_ASSUMED_RANK
> > > >> - && sym->as->type != AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE)
> > > >> - ||
> > > >> - (ref && ref->u.ar.as
> > > >> - && ref->u.ar.as->type != AS_DEFERRED
> > > >> + no_pack = false;
> > > >> + gfc_array_spec *as;
> > > >> + if (sym)
> > > >> + {
> > > >> + symbol_attribute *attr
> > > >> + = &(IS_CLASS_ARRAY (sym) ? CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr :
> > > >> sym->attr);
> > > >> + as = IS_CLASS_ARRAY (sym) ? CLASS_DATA (sym)->as : sym->as;
> > > >> + no_pack
> > > >> + = (as && !attr->pointer && as->type != AS_DEFERRED
> > > >> + && as->type != AS_ASSUMED_RANK && as->type !=
> > > >> AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE);
> > > >> + }
> > > >> + if (ref && ref->u.ar.as)
> > > >> + no_pack = no_pack
> > > >> + || (ref->u.ar.as->type != AS_DEFERRED
> > > >> && ref->u.ar.as->type != AS_ASSUMED_RANK
> > > >> - && ref->u.ar.as->type != AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE)
> > > >> - ||
> > > >> - gfc_is_simply_contiguous (expr, false, true));
> > > >> -
> > > >> - no_pack = contiguous && no_pack;
> > > >> + && ref->u.ar.as->type != AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE);
> > > >> + no_pack
> > > >> + = contiguous && (no_pack || gfc_is_simply_contiguous (expr,
> > > >> false, true));
> > > >>
> > > >> /* If we have an EXPR_OP or a function returning an
> > > >> explicit-shaped or allocatable array, an array temporary will be
> > > >> generated which
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand that this may be your personal coding style, but you
> > > >> might keep in mind that reviewers have to understand the code,
> > > >> too...
> > > >>
> > > >> I have not fully understood your logic when packing is now invoked.
> > > >> We not only need to do it for explicit-size arrays, but also for
> > > >> assumed-size. This still fails for my slightly extended testcase
> > > >> (see attached) where I pass the class array via:
> > > >>
> > > >> subroutine d4(x,n)
> > > >> integer, intent(in) :: n
> > > >> ! class (foo), intent(inout) :: x(n) ! OK
> > > >> class (foo), intent(inout) :: x(*) ! not OK
> > > >> call d3(x,n) ! Simply pass
> > > >> assumed-size array end subroutine d4
> > > >>
> > > >> I am unable to point to the places in your patch where you need to
> > > >> handle that in addition.
> > > >>
> > > >> Otherwise I was unable to see any obvious, major problem with the
> > > >> patch, but then I am not fluent enough in class handling in the
> > > >> gfortran FE. So if e.g. Paul jumps in here within the next 72
> > > >> hours, it would be great.
> > > >>
> > > >> So here comes the issue with the attached code variant.
> > > >> After your patch, this prints as last 4 relevant lines:
> > > >>
> > > >> full: -43 44 45 -46
> > > >> 47 48 -49 50
> > > >> d3_1: -43 44 45
> > > >> d3_2: 43 -44 -45
> > > >> full: 43 -44 -45 -46
> > > >> 47 48 -49 50
> > > >>
> > > >> while when switching the declaration of the dummy argument of d4:
> > > >>
> > > >> full: -43 44 45 -46
> > > >> 47 48 -49 50
> > > >> d3_1: -43 -46 -49
> > > >> d3_2: 43 46 49
> > > >> full: 43 44 45 46
> > > >> 47 48 49 50
> > > >>
> > > >> The latter one is correct, the former one isn't.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry for spoiling the show...
> > > >>
> > > >> Nevertheless, thanks for your great effort so far!
> > > >>
> > > >> Harald
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> Andre
> > > >>>
> > > >>> PS: @Paul I could figure my test failures with -Ox with x e { 2,
> > > >>> 3, s } to be caused by initialization order. I.e. a member was
> > > >>> set only after it was read.
> > > >>
> > > >> [remaining part of mail removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andre Vehreschild * Kreuzherrenstr. 8 * 52062 Aachen
> > Tel.: +49 178 3837536 * ve...@gmx.de
