[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Should be fixed on master.
[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:667db6dedd80487663c29b21efa942f661b569a8 commit r11-4579-g667db6dedd80487663c29b21efa942f661b569a8 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Fri Oct 30 20:49:32 2020 +0100 PR libfortran/97581 - clean up size calculation of random generator state The random number generator internal state may be saved to/restored from an array of integers. Clean up calculation of needed number of elements to avoid redefiniton of auxiliary macro SZ. libgfortran/ChangeLog: * intrinsics/random.c (SZ_IN_INT_4): Define size of state in int32_t. (SZ_IN_INT_8): Define size of state in int64_t. (SZ): Remove. (random_seed_i4): Use size SZ_IN_INT_4 instead of SZ. (random_seed_i8): Use size SZ_IN_INT_8 instead of SZ.
[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-October/055242.html
[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > No, this would be definitely wrong. Agreed. > If the original code does not make you happy, do you think sth. along > > #define SZ (SZU64 * (sizeof (uint64_t) / sizeof (GFC_INTEGER_4))) > > would be better? I think it would. Using a more descriptive name than SZ would be even better. Perhaps SZ_IN_INT_4 ? And so the other definition of SZ for random_seed_i8 could be SZ_IN_INT_8. It might make the code slightly clearer and avoid having two different # defines for SZ.
[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2020-10-26 Ever confirmed|0 |1
[Bug libfortran/97581] libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754: bad array size ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97581
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> gcc has a new warning, so a problem is found in fortran library.
>
> libgfortran/intrinsics/random.c:754:37: warning: expression does not compute
> the number of elements in this array; element type is ‘uint64_t’ {aka ‘long
> unsigned int’}, not ‘GFC_INTEGER_4’ {aka ‘int’} [-Wsizeof-array-div]
>
> Source code is
>
> #define SZ (sizeof (master_state.s) / sizeof (GFC_INTEGER_4))
>
> Maybe better code
>
> #define SZ (sizeof (master_state.s) / sizeof (master_state.s[0]))
No, this would be definitely wrong.
The purpose of RANDOM_SEED is to set/get the internal state of the PRNG in
an array of integers, with the size depending on the kind of the argument.
The function random_seed_i4 uses GFC_INTEGER_4 for that purpose.
If the original code does not make you happy, do you think sth. along
#define SZ (SZU64 * (sizeof (uint64_t) / sizeof (GFC_INTEGER_4)))
would be better?
