In attachment a test case which fails with the current gcc-trunk version but works when the patch is applied. coarray_35.f90 is my attempt to write a gcc test case. The problem is related with atomic_add.
2014-09-15 12:55 GMT-06:00 Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de>: > On 15.09.2014 19:18, Alessandro Fanfarillo wrote: > > New patch after the update. > > > 2014-09-09 0:30 GMT-06:00 Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de>: > >> I think I'd prefer the following patch, which avoids a temporary if none >> is >> required. "value" is a pointer if the kind is the same (see kind check >> before) and if it is not a literal. Otherwise, it isn't a pointer and one >> needs to generate a temporary. >> >> I do not quite understand why the current check doesn't work as both are >> integer(kind=4) but for some reasons one has a variant. >> >> Additionally, I wonder whether one should add a test case – one probably >> should do – and of which kind (run test + fdump-tree-original?). > >> @@ -8398,3 +8398,3 @@ conv_intrinsic_atomic_op (gfc_code *code) >> - if (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (atom)) != TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (value))) >> + if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (value))) > > 2014-09-15 Alessandro Fanfarillo <fanfarillo....@gmail.com> > Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de> > > * trans-intrinsic.c (conv_intrinsic_atomic_op): > Check for indirect reference for caf_atomic_op value. > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c > index a13b113..2d7241a 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c > +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c > @@ -8396,9 +8396,11 @@ conv_intrinsic_atomic_op (gfc_code *code) > else > image_index = integer_zero_node; > > - if (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (atom)) != TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (value))) > + if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (value))) > { > tmp = gfc_create_var (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (atom)), "value"); > + if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (value))) > + value = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (input_location, value); > > > The second part makes no sense: If "value" is not a pointer (which is the > first condition), it can never be a pointer (second condition). > > Otherwise, the patch is okay. The reason I hadn't committed it myself was > that I wanted to include a test case; I was wondering whether it should be a > run test – or a -fdump-tree-original + scan-tree test – or both. > > Can you create a test case? > > Tobias
! { dg-do compile } ! { dg-options "-fcoarray=lib" } ! use iso_fortran_env implicit none integer :: me,np,res integer(atomic_int_kind) :: atom[*] me = this_image() np = num_images() call atomic_define(atom[1],0) sync all call ATOMIC_ADD (atom[1], me) sync all if(me == 1) then call atomic_ref(res,atom[1]) if(res /= (np*(np+1))/2) then { dg-error "Passing pointer address" } endif endif end
program atomic use iso_fortran_env implicit none integer :: me,np,res integer(atomic_int_kind) :: atom[*] me = this_image() np = num_images() call atomic_define(atom[1],0) sync all call ATOMIC_ADD (atom[1], me) sync all if(me == 1) then call atomic_ref(res,atom[1]) if(res /= (np*(np+1))/2) then write(*,*) 'res',res call abort() endif write(*,*) 'OK' endif end program