[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2022-10-10 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords||wrong-code CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > Thing is, I have to find a compiler that gives the result the reporter > expects. Update: the NAG compiler 7.1 seems to be the only compiler that behaves as expected by the user. The somewhat modified testcase shows that not only simplification of MERGE, but also the generated code behaves inconsistently: program p implicit none type t integer :: c end type type, extends (t) :: t2 integer :: c2 end type class(t), allocatable :: x, y, r integer :: i = 1 x = t2(1,-1) y = t2(2,-2) r = x call check_type() r = merge (x, x, i == 1) call check_type () r = merge (y, y, i == 2) call check_type () r = merge (x, y, i == 2) call check_type () contains subroutine check_type () select type (z => r) type is (t) print *, "type is (t) :", z% c type is (t2) print *, "type is (t2):", z% c, z% c2 end select end subroutine end program p NAG 7.1 prints: type is (t2): 1 -1 type is (t2): 1 -1 type is (t2): 2 -2 type is (t2): 2 -2 Current gfortran: type is (t2): 1 -1 type is (t) : 1 type is (t) : 2 type is (t2): 2 -2 As MERGE is expanded inline, I was hoping to understand what happens here, but a first look at the dump-tree looked strange for the second and third case. Needs further investigation.
[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
--- Comment #7 from luoxudong ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:51:10PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > The following untested hackish patch leads to the same answer for both
> > cases:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > index 233cc42137f..abd93956217 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > @@ -4946,7 +4946,8 @@ gfc_simplify_merge (gfc_expr *tsource, gfc_expr
> > *fsource,
> > gfc_expr *mask)
> > {
> >result = gfc_copy_expr (mask->value.logical ? tsource : fsource);
> >/* Parenthesis is needed to get lower bounds of 1. */
> > - result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
> > + if (result->rank)
> > + result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
> >gfc_simplify_expr (result, 1);
> >return result;
> > }
> >
> > Thing is, I have to find a compiler that gives the result the reporter
> > expects.
> > E.g. Intel 2021.5 prints
> >
> >1
> >
> > for both cases.
> >
>
> Harald, thanks for looking at this!
>
> I don't use polymorphism in my codes.
>
> The "class(t) :: x, y, r" declaration clearly gives x, y, r the
> type type(t). I assume that the assignments "x = t2(1,-1)" and
> "y = t2(2,-2)" now change the dynamic type of x and y to type(t2).
> When "r = merge(x,y,...)" is evaluated and assigned the dynamic
> type of r becomes type(t2). So, the output should be
>
> 1 -1
>
> But, again, I'm not polymorphic.
But I still have a question, why does gfortran's code support polymorphic merge
when the mask is a logical variable? What is this code? I hope you can answer
it. Thank you very much
[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
--- Comment #6 from luoxudong ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:51:10PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > The following untested hackish patch leads to the same answer for both
> > cases:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > index 233cc42137f..abd93956217 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > @@ -4946,7 +4946,8 @@ gfc_simplify_merge (gfc_expr *tsource, gfc_expr
> > *fsource,
> > gfc_expr *mask)
> > {
> >result = gfc_copy_expr (mask->value.logical ? tsource : fsource);
> >/* Parenthesis is needed to get lower bounds of 1. */
> > - result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
> > + if (result->rank)
> > + result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
> >gfc_simplify_expr (result, 1);
> >return result;
> > }
> >
> > Thing is, I have to find a compiler that gives the result the reporter
> > expects.
> > E.g. Intel 2021.5 prints
> >
> >1
> >
> > for both cases.
> >
>
> Harald, thanks for looking at this!
>
> I don't use polymorphism in my codes.
>
> The "class(t) :: x, y, r" declaration clearly gives x, y, r the
> type type(t). I assume that the assignments "x = t2(1,-1)" and
> "y = t2(2,-2)" now change the dynamic type of x and y to type(t2).
> When "r = merge(x,y,...)" is evaluated and assigned the dynamic
> type of r becomes type(t2). So, the output should be
>
> 1 -1
>
> But, again, I'm not polymorphic.
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:51:10PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > The following untested hackish patch leads to the same answer for both
> > cases:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > index 233cc42137f..abd93956217 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> > @@ -4946,7 +4946,8 @@ gfc_simplify_merge (gfc_expr *tsource, gfc_expr
> > *fsource,
> > gfc_expr *mask)
> > {
> >result = gfc_copy_expr (mask->value.logical ? tsource : fsource);
> >/* Parenthesis is needed to get lower bounds of 1. */
> > - result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
> > + if (result->rank)
> > + result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
> >gfc_simplify_expr (result, 1);
> >return result;
> > }
> >
> > Thing is, I have to find a compiler that gives the result the reporter
> > expects.
> > E.g. Intel 2021.5 prints
> >
> >1
> >
> > for both cases.
> >
>
> Harald, thanks for looking at this!
>
> I don't use polymorphism in my codes.
>
> The "class(t) :: x, y, r" declaration clearly gives x, y, r the
> type type(t). I assume that the assignments "x = t2(1,-1)" and
> "y = t2(2,-2)" now change the dynamic type of x and y to type(t2).
> When "r = merge(x,y,...)" is evaluated and assigned the dynamic
> type of r becomes type(t2). So, the output should be
>
> 1 -1
>
> But, again, I'm not polymorphic.
I think so,thanks a lot.
[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:51:10PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
>
> --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> The following untested hackish patch leads to the same answer for both cases:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> index 233cc42137f..abd93956217 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
> @@ -4946,7 +4946,8 @@ gfc_simplify_merge (gfc_expr *tsource, gfc_expr
> *fsource,
> gfc_expr *mask)
> {
>result = gfc_copy_expr (mask->value.logical ? tsource : fsource);
>/* Parenthesis is needed to get lower bounds of 1. */
> - result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
> + if (result->rank)
> + result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
>gfc_simplify_expr (result, 1);
>return result;
> }
>
> Thing is, I have to find a compiler that gives the result the reporter
> expects.
> E.g. Intel 2021.5 prints
>
>1
>
> for both cases.
>
Harald, thanks for looking at this!
I don't use polymorphism in my codes.
The "class(t) :: x, y, r" declaration clearly gives x, y, r the
type type(t). I assume that the assignments "x = t2(1,-1)" and
"y = t2(2,-2)" now change the dynamic type of x and y to type(t2).
When "r = merge(x,y,...)" is evaluated and assigned the dynamic
type of r becomes type(t2). So, the output should be
1 -1
But, again, I'm not polymorphic.
[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following untested hackish patch leads to the same answer for both cases:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
index 233cc42137f..abd93956217 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
@@ -4946,7 +4946,8 @@ gfc_simplify_merge (gfc_expr *tsource, gfc_expr *fsource,
gfc_expr *mask)
{
result = gfc_copy_expr (mask->value.logical ? tsource : fsource);
/* Parenthesis is needed to get lower bounds of 1. */
- result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
+ if (result->rank)
+ result = gfc_get_parentheses (result);
gfc_simplify_expr (result, 1);
return result;
}
Thing is, I have to find a compiler that gives the result the reporter expects.
E.g. Intel 2021.5 prints
1
for both cases.
[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371 --- Comment #3 from luoxudong --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > So, what do you believe the correct output should be? I think the output when the mask is constant should be consistent with the result when the mask is variable. 1.The output when the mask is constant : 1 2.The output when the mask is constant : 1 -1 the correct output should be : 1 -1
[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- So, what do you believe the correct output should be?
[Bug fortran/105371] The result of the merge function is different when it's type of parameters is the extensions type of derived type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105371 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- *** Bug 105372 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
