[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #24 from Thomas Koenig --- Fixed on trunk, closing.
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 --- Comment #23 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sat Jan 19 20:06:41 2019 New Revision: 268096 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268096=gcc=rev Log: 2018-01-19 Thomas Koenig Paul Thomas PR fortran/56789 * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Call gfc_conv_subref_array_arg if the formal arg is contiguous and the actual arg may not be. 2018-01-19 Thomas Koenig Paul Thomas PR fortran/56789 * gfortran.dg/contiguous_3.f90: Make code compilant. Remove scan-tree tests that fail with patch. * gfortran.dg/contiguous_8.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/contiguous_8.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/contiguous_3.f90
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 --- Comment #22 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21) > Hi Paul, > > > I was mulling this over a few months ago and came to the conclusion > > that copy-in/copy-out was the only thing that made sense. > > Well, in that case, I'll take this (if you don't mind). > > I am currently working in that area anyway, so I might as > well look at this. > > Regards > > Thomas Be my guest! Paul
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pault at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig --- Hi Paul, > I was mulling this over a few months ago and came to the conclusion > that copy-in/copy-out was the only thing that made sense. Well, in that case, I'll take this (if you don't mind). I am currently working in that area anyway, so I might as well look at this. Regards Thomas
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 --- Comment #20 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Thomas, I was mulling this over a few months ago and came to the conclusion that copy-in/copy-out was the only thing that made sense. The IBM manual is explicit about this: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGH4D_15.1.3/com.ibm.xlf1513.aix.doc/language_ref/contiguous.html Regards Paul On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 at 12:36, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 > > --- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig --- > I have asked in > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/comp.lang.fortran$20contiguous$20dummy%7Csort:date/comp.lang.fortran/QiFkx8b48uw/wtQE9M_aFwAJ > . > > Let's see what sort of answers there will be, apart from the almost > inevitable references to PL/I... > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug. > You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 --- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig --- I have asked in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/comp.lang.fortran$20contiguous$20dummy%7Csort:date/comp.lang.fortran/QiFkx8b48uw/wtQE9M_aFwAJ . Let's see what sort of answers there will be, apart from the almost inevitable references to PL/I...
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 --- Comment #18 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #12) > (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #11) > > (In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #10) > > > Even if that were allowed, the standard explicitly disallows the > > > argument association in the testcase: See 5.3.7 of the F2008 standard. > > > > The wording has changed in F2018 DIS, 8.5.7, paragraph 1: > > > > The CONTIGUOUS attribute specifies that an assumed-shape array is > > contiguous, > > that an array pointer can only be pointer associated with a contiguous > > target, > > or that an assumed-rank dummy data object is contiguous. > > > > > > In my interpretation, the testcase is valid under F2018, but invalid in > > F2008. > > Hmmm! The F2018 standard is almost obfusticating about argument association > with contiguous dummies. I will wade through the pertinent sections tonight. > > Paul FWIW: Crayftn, Intel, PGI, NAG all accept the code without complaining and seem to do the packing/unpacking.
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 44782 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44782=edit "fix" for the PR Ignoring the niceties of the standard for the moment, this "fixes" the problem; or, at least, it runs as intended. Cheers Paul
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789
--- Comment #16 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Thomas,
I think that the copy in/copy out might be rather easy to arrange.
Give me a couple of days.
Paul
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 22:01, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789
>
> --- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
> This would reject the obvious non-contiguous cases.
>
> Index: interface.c
> ===
> --- interface.c (Revision 264540)
> +++ interface.c (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -3297,6 +3297,14 @@ compare_actual_formal (gfc_actual_arglist **ap, gf
> return false;
> }
>
> + if (f->sym->attr.contiguous
> + && !gfc_is_simply_contiguous (a->expr, false, true))
> + {
> + gfc_error ("Non-contiguous argument actual argument passed to "
> +"contiguous dummy argument %qs at %L", f->sym->name,
> +>expr->where);
> + }
> +
>/* Find the last array_ref. */
>actual_arr_ref = NULL;
>if (a->expr->ref)
> Index: trans-array.c
> ===
> --- trans-array.c (Revision 264540)
> +++ trans-array.c (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -7862,8 +7862,7 @@ gfc_conv_array_parameter (gfc_se * se, gfc_expr *
>gfc_prepend_expr_to_block (>post, tmp);
> }
>
> - if (g77 || (fsym && fsym->attr.contiguous
> - && !gfc_is_simply_contiguous (expr, false, true)))
> + if (g77)
> {
>tree origptr = NULL_TREE;
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- Of course, there should be a "return false;" in there as well.
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
This would reject the obvious non-contiguous cases.
Index: interface.c
===
--- interface.c (Revision 264540)
+++ interface.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -3297,6 +3297,14 @@ compare_actual_formal (gfc_actual_arglist **ap, gf
return false;
}
+ if (f->sym->attr.contiguous
+ && !gfc_is_simply_contiguous (a->expr, false, true))
+ {
+ gfc_error ("Non-contiguous argument actual argument passed to "
+"contiguous dummy argument %qs at %L", f->sym->name,
+>expr->where);
+ }
+
/* Find the last array_ref. */
actual_arr_ref = NULL;
if (a->expr->ref)
Index: trans-array.c
===
--- trans-array.c (Revision 264540)
+++ trans-array.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -7862,8 +7862,7 @@ gfc_conv_array_parameter (gfc_se * se, gfc_expr *
gfc_prepend_expr_to_block (>post, tmp);
}
- if (g77 || (fsym && fsym->attr.contiguous
- && !gfc_is_simply_contiguous (expr, false, true)))
+ if (g77)
{
tree origptr = NULL_TREE;
[Bug fortran/56789] Handling of contiguous dummy arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Summary|Wrong code with contiguous |Handling of contiguous |dummy argument |dummy arguments --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- So, this is a diagnostic issue after all. For the time being, it seems that we could just not do the pack/unpack and issue an error for the test case. We can handle the F2018 stuff later (whatever it turns out to be).
