Hi Tobias,
An earlier version of the patch, without the exclusion of unlimited
polymorphic expressions caused several regressions. However, omitting the
exclusion now causes no regressions. I forgot to go back to this wrinkle.
I have included your testcases with appropriate attribution and
Hi Paul,
I do not understand the !UNLIMITED_POLY(fsym) part of the patch.
In particular, your patch causes foo.f90 to fail by wrongly diagnosting:
Fortran runtime error: Pointer actual argument 'cptr' is not associated
I have only did some light tests – but it seems that just removing
'&&
This patch is straightforward but the isolation of the problem was rather
less so. Many thanks to Juergen for testcase reduction.
Regtested on FC33/x86_64 - OK for master?
Paul
Fortran: Fix problem with runtime pointer chack [PR99602].
2021-03-26 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
PR
Hi Tobias,
Thanks for the review. I am resisting dg-run for this patch simply because
the testsuite already takes an oppressive amount of time to run. That the
runtime error is present in the code should be sufficient IMHO.
Regards
Paul
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:46, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
Hi Paul, hi all fortran@/gcc-patch@ reader,
it looks as if you replied with your patch submission to the wrong email
address – and your re-submission ended up at https://gcc.gnu.org/PR99602#c17
On 16.03.21 18:08, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 16.03.21 17:42, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches
Hi Tobias,
> Shouldn't there be also a testcase which triggers this run-time error?
The testcase is there, it simply has the wrong dg-foo:
! { dg-do compile }
which should be
! { dg-do run }
*-*-*
There are certainly more cases which should insert checks but currently don't,
like:
Hi Paul,
On 16.03.21 17:42, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
Fortran: Fix runtime errors for class actual arguments [PR99602].
* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): For class formal
arguments, use the _data field attributes for runtime errors.
* gfortran.dg/pr99602.f90: New test.
Hi Everybody,
Although this is 'obvious' I thought that I should post it because I
believe that it was triggered by the fix for PR99602 but I just do not have
the bandwidth at the moment to test that. The ChangeLog together with the
patch is more than sufficient explanation.
Regtests OK on
