Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114
> > > Hi Harald, > Indeed, the gfc_fatal_error always wins. :-( > > This PR is marked as a regression. Depending on your progress, > it might be worth to consider fixing what you think is needed > to get rid of the regression marker and defer the improvement > of the diagnostics to a second patch. I am mindful that the PR is a regression. One way or another, I will commit the basic fix tomorrow evening. Cheers Paul
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114
Hi Paul! On 4/20/24 09:54, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: subroutine sub implicit none real, external :: x real :: y(10) integer :: kk print *, [real(x(k))] ! print *, [real(y(k))] end This is another problem, somewhere upstream from resolve.cc, which I have just spent an hour failing to find. In the presence of both print statements, in no matter which order, it is the error in trans-decl.cc that applies. Indeed, the gfc_fatal_error always wins. (I had tried to replace it with gfc_error()/return NULL_TREE, but then I hit an ICE later on. When trying to find out who added the said code, guess whom I found :) Thus I have the impression that the testcase tests something different on the one hand, and on the other I wonder if we would want to change the error message and replace "no default type" to "no IMPLICIT type". It still would not hit the fuzzy check, but that is something that might not be important now. The fuzzy check was intended to ensure that the error was being detected in the "right" place. I want to keep the "no default type" message for the time being at least so as to identify exactly where it comes from. Getting to trans-decl.cc with an unknown type is just wrong. True. I'll come back to you on this. This PR is marked as a regression. Depending on your progress, it might be worth to consider fixing what you think is needed to get rid of the regression marker and defer the improvement of the diagnostics to a second patch. Harald Thanks for the report. Paul
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114
Hi Harald, > > the patch is OK, but I had to manually fix it. I wonder how you managed > to produce: > Yes, I had to use --whitespace fix when I reapplied it a few minutes ago. > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90 > I had followed comment 1 in the PR and wrongly named the file because of it. Now corrected. > > subroutine sub >implicit none >real, external :: x >real :: y(10) >integer :: kk >print *, [real(x(k))] > ! print *, [real(y(k))] > end > This is another problem, somewhere upstream from resolve.cc, which I have just spent an hour failing to find. In the presence of both print statements, in no matter which order, it is the error in trans-decl.cc that applies. > Thus I have the impression that the testcase tests something different > on the one hand, and on the other I wonder if we would want to change > the error message and replace "no default type" to "no IMPLICIT type". > It still would not hit the fuzzy check, but that is something that > might not be important now. > The fuzzy check was intended to ensure that the error was being detected in the "right" place. I want to keep the "no default type" message for the time being at least so as to identify exactly where it comes from. Getting to trans-decl.cc with an unknown type is just wrong. I'll come back to you on this. Thanks for the report. Paul
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114
Hi Paul, the patch is OK, but I had to manually fix it. I wonder how you managed to produce: diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90 new file mode 100644 index 000..4dcad47e8da --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103471.f90 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ A minor comment on the error message and the testcase. Take for example: subroutine sub implicit none real, external :: x real :: y(10) integer :: kk print *, [real(x(k))] ! print *, [real(y(k))] end The original testcase in the PR would - without implicit none - resemble the function invocation x(k) here and emit the error: Fatal Error: k at (1) has no default type compilation terminated. while commenting the first print and uncommenting the second would emit the message Error: Symbol 'k' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type; did you mean 'kk'? Thus I have the impression that the testcase tests something different on the one hand, and on the other I wonder if we would want to change the error message and replace "no default type" to "no IMPLICIT type". It still would not hit the fuzzy check, but that is something that might not be important now. Thanks, Harald On 4/19/24 18:52, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: Hi All, This is a more or less obvious patch. The action is in resolve.cc. The chunk in symbol.cc is a tidy up of a diagnostic marker to distinguish where the 'no IMPLICIT type' error was coming from and the chunk in trans-decl.cc follows from discussion with Harald on the PR. Regtests fine. OK for mainline and backporting in a couple of weeks? Paul Fortran: Detect 'no implicit type' error in right place [PR103471] 2024-04-19 Paul Thomas gcc/fortran PR fortran/103471 * resolve.cc (gfc_resolve_index_1): Block index expressions of unknown type from being converted to default integer, avoiding the fatal error in trans-decl.cc. * symbol.cc (gfc_set_default_type): Remove '(symbol)' from the 'no IMPLICIT type' error message. * trans-decl.cc (gfc_get_symbol_decl): Change fatal error locus to that of the symbol declaration. (gfc_trans_deferred_vars): Remove two trailing tabs. gcc/testsuite/ PR fortran/103471 * gfortran.dg/pr103471.f90: New test.
