[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 18:48:44 UTC --- Seems I forgot to close this one after committing the fix. Close now.
[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-21 17:32:15 UTC --- Author: kargl Date: Sat Jan 21 17:32:12 2012 New Revision: 183370 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183370 Log: 2012-01-21 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/50556 * symbol.c (check_conflict): namelist-group-name cannot have the SAVE attribure. 2012-01-21 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/50556 * gfortran.dg/namelist_74.f90: New test. * gfortran.dg/namelist_59.f90: Remove SAVE attribute. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/namelist_74.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/namelist_59.f90
[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-21 17:37:40 UTC --- Fixed on trunk. Thanks for the bug reports.
[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-29 14:47:52 UTC --- One might argue that a SAVE namelist-group-name should mean that all namelist-group-objects associate this namelist-group-name gets the SAVE attribute. If this interpretation was correct, then one would expect that text in the Standard would make this clear. Well, I see in the standard: C553 An entity with the SAVE attribute shall be a common block, variable, or procedure pointer. And I would argue that a namelist-group-name is neither a common block, a variable nor a procedure pointer. Thus, I believe that the code in comment 0 is invalid. Regarding the patch in comment 1: I think it will not work if one swaps the order of NAMELIST and SAVE. Untested patch: --- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.c @@ -441,6 +441,7 @@ check_conflict (symbol_attribute *attr, const char *name, locus *where) case FL_LABEL: case FL_DERIVED: case FL_PARAMETER: + case FL_NAMELIST: a1 = gfc_code2string (flavors, attr-flavor); a2 = save; goto conflict; @@ -449,7 +450,6 @@ check_conflict (symbol_attribute *attr, const char *name, locus *where) /* Conflicts between SAVE and PROCEDURE will be checked at resolution stage, see resolve_fl_procedure. */ case FL_VARIABLE: - case FL_NAMELIST: default: break; }
[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-29 15:17:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) Well, I see in the standard: [Fortran 2008] C553 An entity with the SAVE attribute shall be a common block, variable, or procedure pointer. And I would argue that a namelist-group-name is neither a common block, a variable nor a procedure pointer. See also http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/07da50d1aaf3870d - there, the argument seems to be the same, though the reference is R544. * * * From c.l.f: Unfortunately, I also found that gfortran has interpreted something like namelist /cmd/ i, j, k save cmd to mean namelist /cmd/ i, j, k save i, j, k The question is whether one needs to allow it. g95 and gfortran allow the code ifort, NAG f95, g77 (!), pathf95/openf95/crayftn reject it. PGI warns Symbol, i, appears illegally in a SAVE statement Thus, I wouldn't mind breaking the backward compatibility.
[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-10-29 16:49:38 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 02:47:52PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
One might argue that a SAVE namelist-group-name should mean that all
namelist-group-objects associate this namelist-group-name gets the SAVE
attribute. If this interpretation was correct, then one would expect that
text in the Standard would make this clear.
Well, I see in the standard:
C553 An entity with the SAVE attribute shall be a common block,
variable, or procedure pointer.
And I would argue that a namelist-group-name is neither a common block, a
variable nor a procedure pointer.
Well, spotted. I was scanning the standards for 'namelist-group',
so missed C553.
Thus, I believe that the code in comment 0 is invalid.
Regarding the patch in comment 1: I think it will not work if one swaps the
order of NAMELIST and SAVE.
Confirmed.
Untested patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
@@ -441,6 +441,7 @@ check_conflict (symbol_attribute *attr, const char *name,
locus *where)
case FL_LABEL:
case FL_DERIVED:
case FL_PARAMETER:
+ case FL_NAMELIST:
a1 = gfc_code2string (flavors, attr-flavor);
a2 = save;
goto conflict;
@@ -449,7 +450,6 @@ check_conflict (symbol_attribute *attr, const char *name,
locus *where)
/* Conflicts between SAVE and PROCEDURE will be checked at
resolution stage, see resolve_fl_procedure. */
case FL_VARIABLE:
- case FL_NAMELIST:
default:
break;
}
I tested the above. It catches both examples of invalid code
(namelist before save and save before namelist). However, the
error message is a bit strange:
ab.f90:2.12:
save i
1
Error: NAMELIST attribute conflicts with SAVE attribute in 'i' at (1)
NAMELIST is not an attribute. With the attached patch, I get
laptop:kargl[239] gfc4x -c namelist_74.f90
namelist_74.f90:5.15:
namelist /i/ ii! { dg-error cannot have a SAVE attribute }
1
Error: Namelist group name at (1) cannot have a SAVE attribute
namelist_74.f90:9.9:
save i ! { dg-error cannot have a SAVE attribute }
1
Error: Namelist group name at (1) cannot have a SAVE attribute
[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2011-10-29 16:51:10 UTC --- On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 03:17:19PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: From c.l.f: Unfortunately, I also found that gfortran has interpreted something like namelist /cmd/ i, j, k save cmd to mean namelist /cmd/ i, j, k save i, j, k The question is whether one needs to allow it. g95 and gfortran allow the code ifort, NAG f95, g77 (!), pathf95/openf95/crayftn reject it. PGI warns Symbol, i, appears illegally in a SAVE statement Thus, I wouldn't mind breaking the backward compatibility. I vote that gfortran should follow the majority and simply issue an error.
[Bug fortran/50556] cannot save namelist group name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-28 05:21:48 UTC ---
The patch at the end of this note will issue an error for the test code.
I, however, cannot find any text concerning namelist in the F2008 standard
that prohibits the code. One might argue that a SAVE namelist-group-name
should mean that all namelist-group-objects associate this
namelist-group-name gets the SAVE attribute. If this interpretation
was correct, then one would expect that text in the Standard would
make this clear.
laptop:kargl[231] gfc4x -c foo.f90
foo.f90:2.12:
save i
1
Error: Namelist group name at (1) cannot appear in a SAVE statement
Index: decl.c
===
--- decl.c (revision 180567)
+++ decl.c (working copy)
@@ -6831,6 +6831,14 @@ gfc_match_save (void)
if (gfc_add_save (sym-attr, SAVE_EXPLICIT, sym-name,
gfc_current_locus) == FAILURE)
return MATCH_ERROR;
+
+ if (sym-attr.flavor == FL_NAMELIST)
+ {
+ gfc_error (Namelist group name at %C cannot appear in a
+SAVE statement);
+ return MATCH_ERROR;
+ }
+
goto next_item;
case MATCH_NO:
l
