Hi Harald, That is the sort of thing that I had in mind. Is it worth adding the check for CLASS_DATA? I cannot remember if that is made redundant by the test of the class_ok attribute.
Cheers Paul On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 21:08, Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Am 28.12.21 um 12:56 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran: > > Hi Harald, > > > > This looks good to me. OK for mainline and, dare I suggest, 11-branch? > > > > From a quick run through resolve.c, there are many places where the > extra > > checks that you introduced in the patch have been implemented. This makes > > me wonder whether a function or macro might not make the relevant code > more > > concise. > > I had thought about this in the past, too. Suitably chosen macros > could help to make checking not only more concise, but also more > robust and (hopefully) readable at the same time. > > What do you think about e.g. > > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h > index e5d2dd7971e..f3d22b46a75 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h > +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h > @@ -3885,6 +3885,8 @@ bool gfc_is_finalizable (gfc_symbol *, gfc_expr **); > && CLASS_DATA (sym) \ > && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.dimension \ > && !CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.class_pointer) > +#define IS_CLASS_OBJ(sym) \ > + (sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS && sym->attr.class_ok) > > /* frontend-passes.c */ > > > to be used to ensure that we are dealing with a CLASS object where > attributes should already have been set up? Or use a better name? > (IS_CLASS_OBJECT?) > > Thanks, > Harald > > > Thanks for the patch > > > > Paul > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 22:17, Harald Anlauf via Fortran < > fort...@gcc.gnu.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> there are a couple of NULL pointer dereferences leading to improper > >> error recovery when trying to handle Gerhard's testcases involving > >> SELECT TYPE and invalid uses of CLASS variables. > >> > >> The fixes look pretty obvious to me, but I'm submitting here to > >> check if there is more that should be done here. > >> > >> (I was surprised to see that there are several different places > >> involved by rather simple variations in the basic test case.) > >> > >> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Harald > >> > >> > > > > -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
