------- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-04-27 08:20 -------
I think the right patch is:
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c 2009-04-20 13:44:15.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-array.c 2009-04-27 09:38:58.000000000 +0200
@@ -3253,6 +3253,8 @@ gfc_conv_ss_startstride (gfc_loopinfo *
info->start[n]);
tmp = fold_build2 (FLOOR_DIV_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type, tmp,
info->stride[n]);
+ tmp = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type,
+ gfc_index_one_node, tmp);
tmp = fold_build2 (MAX_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type, tmp,
build_int_cst (gfc_array_index_type, 0));
/* We remember the size of the first section, and check all the
Is a comment really needed? I have manually tested the failures seen with the
patch in comment #3 and they all pass now except
gfortran.dg/bounds_check_14.f90 which gives
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% gfc -fbounds-check
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_14.f90
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% a.out
At line 21 of file
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_14.f90
Fortran runtime error: Array bound mismatch, size mismatch for dimension 1 of
array 'xca' (1/0)
Line 21 is
xca(1:1) = xda(1:2:mf3)
and I think the diagnostic is now correct (mf3==-3 or -1) and I don't
understand how the test is supposed to work:
if size(xda(1:2:mf3)) == 0, as checked by a later test, how can xca take the
value -1?
What ma I missing?
Also I'd be interested by ideas about test cases for this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35732
