Re: [Patch, Fortran] Implement Unsigned for SUM and PRODUCT

[Thomas Koenig]

Am 19.09.24 um 11:55 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:

Hi Thomas,

thanks for the patch. I have one proposal/question and one missing verb (IMO).
Else the patch looks fine to me. Ok for trunk.

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
index 829ab00c665..e5ffe67eeee 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
+++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
@@ -2788,7 +2788,7 @@ As of now, the following intrinsics take unsigned
arguments: @item @code{MVBITS}
  @item @code{RANGE}
  @item @code{TRANSFER}
-@item @code{MATMUL} and @code{DOT_PRODUCT}
+@item @code{SUM}, @code{PRODUCT}, @code{MATMUL} and @code{DOT_PRODUCT}

How about sorting those alphabetically and putting each on a separate line?
This might make it more viewable. Just a suggestion.

I tried to group them somewhat logically, but you're right, this may be
better.  Eventually, I want to document the UNSIGNED arguments to
all intrinsics so they are in the right place.

I think I will re-sort this after all intrinsics have been finished.

  @end itemize
  This list will grow in the near future.
  @c ---------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc
index 32b31432e58..92a591cf6d7 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/iresolve.cc
@@ -175,9 +175,11 @@ resolve_bound (gfc_expr *f, gfc_expr *array, gfc_expr
*dim, gfc_expr *kind,
  static void
  resolve_transformational (const char *name, gfc_expr *f, gfc_expr *array,
-                         gfc_expr *dim, gfc_expr *mask)
+                         gfc_expr *dim, gfc_expr *mask,
+                         bool use_integer = false)
  {
    const char *prefix;
+  bt type;

    f->ts = array->ts;

@@ -200,9 +202,18 @@ resolve_transformational (const char *name, gfc_expr *f,
gfc_expr *array, gfc_resolve_dim_arg (dim);
      }

+  /* For those intrinsic like SUM where we the integer version

There is a verb missing here, IMO. ... where we _use_ the ... ???

This sentence no verb, correct :-)

+     actually uses unsigned, but we call it as the integer
+     version.  */
+
+  if (use_integer && array->ts.type == BT_UNSIGNED)
+    type = BT_INTEGER;
+  else
+    type = array->ts.type;
+
    f->value.function.name
      = gfc_get_string (PREFIX ("%s%s_%c%d"), prefix, name,
-                     gfc_type_letter (array->ts.type),
+                     gfc_type_letter (type),
                      gfc_type_abi_kind (&array->ts));
  }

Regards and thanks for the patch,
        Andre

Thanks!

Best regards

        Thomas