[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to DIL from comment #20) > Thanks for fixing this bug! Sorry, I have not had time yet to create a > reduced non-trivial test case. Would you still like to add it later if I > make it? If yes, should I just attach it later to this closed bug report? Just attach it to this PR. I'll try to take care of it.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #20 from DIL --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #19) > Fixed on trunk and all open branches (7/8). > > Closing, as no reduced run-time testcase was provided. > Please reopen or create a new PR if an issue is found. > > Thanks for the report! Thanks for fixing this bug! Sorry, I have not had time yet to create a reduced non-trivial test case. Would you still like to add it later if I make it? If yes, should I just attach it later to this closed bug report?
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed on trunk and all open branches (7/8). Closing, as no reduced run-time testcase was provided. Please reopen or create a new PR if an issue is found. Thanks for the report!
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 19:21:37 2019 New Revision: 270047 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270047=gcc=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf Backport from trunk PR fortran/83515 PR fortran/85797 * trans-types.c (gfc_typenode_for_spec): Handle conversion for procedure pointers. * target-memory.c (gfc_element_size): Handle size determination for procedure pointers. PR fortran/83515 PR fortran/85797 * gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90: New test. Added: branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90 Modified: branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/fortran/target-memory.c branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 19:08:23 2019 New Revision: 270046 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270046=gcc=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/83515 PR fortran/85797 * trans-types.c (gfc_typenode_for_spec): Handle conversion for procedure pointers. * target-memory.c (gfc_element_size): Handle size determination for procedure pointers. PR fortran/83515 PR fortran/85797 * gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90: New test. Added: branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90 Modified: branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/fortran/target-memory.c branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 18:33:51 2019 New Revision: 270045 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270045=gcc=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/83515 PR fortran/85797 * trans-types.c (gfc_typenode_for_spec): Handle conversion for procedure pointers. * target-memory.c (gfc_element_size): Handle size determination for procedure pointers. PR fortran/83515 PR fortran/85797 * gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/target-memory.c trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to DIL from comment #14) > Ok, so you are still looking for a single Fortran source file using this > feature, namely optional dummy procedure pointers, that would do something > non-trivial with them and produce PASS/FAIL output? If yes, then I can try > making such a reduced test (if needed). I am just not familiar with GNU test > requirements. Exactly. Just assume that many thousands of tests are run for regression testing each time, and productivity of the developers depends on the turnaround time.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #14 from DIL --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #13) > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12) > > > Sorry, I am confused, I think Comment 1 already has such a reduced test. > > > At least the what it says there ... > > > > It is a reduced test for the ICE (as are further reduced tests in comments 3 > > and 9), > > but they do not allow to check that fortran is not producing a wrong code > > instead of an ICE. > > > > I understand > > > > > However, I do not have a working code sample to run. > > > > as asking for such a test. > > Exactly. > > Taking this PR. It has some overlap to PR85797 and can probably be fixed > with the same patch. Ok, so you are still looking for a single Fortran source file using this feature, namely optional dummy procedure pointers, that would do something non-trivial with them and produce PASS/FAIL output? If yes, then I can try making such a reduced test (if needed). I am just not familiar with GNU test requirements.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12) > > Sorry, I am confused, I think Comment 1 already has such a reduced test. > > At least the what it says there ... > > It is a reduced test for the ICE (as are further reduced tests in comments 3 > and 9), > but they do not allow to check that fortran is not producing a wrong code > instead of an ICE. > > I understand > > > However, I do not have a working code sample to run. > > as asking for such a test. Exactly. Taking this PR. It has some overlap to PR85797 and can probably be fixed with the same patch.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Sorry, I am confused, I think Comment 1 already has such a reduced test. > At least the what it says there ... It is a reduced test for the ICE (as are further reduced tests in comments 3 and 9), but they do not allow to check that fortran is not producing a wrong code instead of an ICE. I understand > However, I do not have a working code sample to run. as asking for such a test.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #11 from DIL --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10) > With the patch in comment 8 all the tests compile and the original test in > comment 0 gives ta runtime > > gfc::bank testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: > 3532045.4736842103 > gfc::vector testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: > 2515463.5218254919 > gfc::list testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: > 2515463.5218254919 > gfc::tree testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: > 1045525.1575901519 > gfc::dictionary testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: > 836199.51143490721 > gfc::graph testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: > 118470.61398863114 > Multi-index sort testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: > 239778.83863299151 > Dynamic type inferrence slowdown: 0.1258 67109934.2342983 0.1312 > 67109934.23429831.0432470247796064 > > > However, I do not have a working code sample to run > > The original test is not suitable for the test suite, but the author can > probably reduce it. Sorry, I am confused, I think Comment 1 already has such a reduced test. At least the what it says there ...
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- With the patch in comment 8 all the tests compile and the original test in comment 0 gives ta runtime gfc::bank testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: 3532045.4736842103 gfc::vector testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: 2515463.5218254919 gfc::list testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: 2515463.5218254919 gfc::tree testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: 1045525.1575901519 gfc::dictionary testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: 836199.51143490721 gfc::graph testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: 118470.61398863114 Multi-index sort testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance: 239778.83863299151 Dynamic type inferrence slowdown: 0.1258 67109934.2342983 0.1312 67109934.23429831.0432470247796064 > However, I do not have a working code sample to run The original test is not suitable for the test suite, but the author can probably reduce it.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 Kwok Yeung changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kcy at codesourcery dot com --- Comment #9 from Kwok Yeung --- (In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #3) The test case can be reduced even further: module m contains function f() result(z) class(*), pointer :: z end recursive subroutine s(q) procedure(f) :: q call s(q) end end
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
The following patch fixes the ICE:
Index: trans-types.c
===
--- trans-types.c (revision 269779)
+++ trans-types.c (working copy)
@@ -1194,6 +1194,9 @@
basetype = pfunc_type_node;
}
break;
+case BT_PROCEDURE:
+ basetype = pfunc_type_node;
+ break;
default:
gcc_unreachable ();
}
Index: target-memory.c
===
--- target-memory.c (revision 269779)
+++ target-memory.c (working copy)
@@ -120,6 +120,7 @@
case BT_CLASS:
case BT_VOID:
case BT_ASSUMED:
+case BT_PROCEDURE:
{
/* Determine type size without clobbering the typespec for ISO C
binding types. */
However, I do not have a working code sample to run.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #3) In class.c we have: Breakpoint 1, find_intrinsic_vtab (ts=0x2474758) at ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/class.c:2715 2715gfc_element_size (e, _size); (gdb) p e->ts.type $8 = BT_PROCEDURE This case is something that is generally not handled. What is the storage size of procedure (pointers)? This needs to be added in gfc_element_size or gfc_typenode_for_spec, and the call in class.c needs to be adjusted accordingly.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #6 from DIL --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4) > (In reply to DIL from comment #2) > > For GFORTRAN 6.4.0 and earlier, the relevant compiler bug has been fixed in > > 78300. > > Are you saying that the exact same bug reappeared here, which had previously > been discussed and fixed in PR78300? > > > (In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #3) > > Simplified : [...] > > Thanks, ICE confirmed/still present. What I meant in Comment 2 is that this ICE might be related to 78300 that I reported in the past. Both have issues with optional dummy procedure arguments. Sorry for the confusion. This is still an open issue and I still observe this ICE with gfortran/8.2.0.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #5 from DIL --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #4) > (In reply to DIL from comment #2) > > For GFORTRAN 6.4.0 and earlier, the relevant compiler bug has been fixed in > > 78300. > > Are you saying that the exact same bug reappeared here, which had previously > been discussed and fixed in PR78300? > > > (In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #3) > > Simplified : [...] > > Thanks, ICE confirmed/still present. This ICE is still present in gfortran/8.2.0.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-12-22 00:00:00 |2019-3-12 CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge --- (In reply to DIL from comment #2) > For GFORTRAN 6.4.0 and earlier, the relevant compiler bug has been fixed in > 78300. Are you saying that the exact same bug reappeared here, which had previously been discussed and fixed in PR78300? (In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #3) > Simplified : [...] Thanks, ICE confirmed/still present.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gs...@t-online.de --- Comment #3 from G. Steinmetz --- Simplified : $ cat z1.f90 module m type t contains procedure :: g => s end type contains function f(x) result(z) class(*), pointer :: z end subroutine s(x, q) class(t) :: x procedure(f) :: q call x%g(q=q) end end $ gfortran-9-20180610 -c z1.f90 f951: internal compiler error: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size. 0x65bfef gfc_internal_error(char const*, ...) ../../gcc/fortran/error.c:1362 0x6f150b gfc_element_size(gfc_expr*) ../../gcc/fortran/target-memory.c:126 0x640228 find_intrinsic_vtab ../../gcc/fortran/class.c:2702 0x640228 gfc_find_vtab(gfc_typespec*) ../../gcc/fortran/class.c:2845 0x66a6d8 compare_actual_formal ../../gcc/fortran/interface.c:2946 0x66c5ae gfc_procedure_use(gfc_symbol*, gfc_actual_arglist**, locus*) ../../gcc/fortran/interface.c:3738 0x6cd415 resolve_specific_s0 ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3457 0x6cd415 resolve_specific_s ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3477 0x6cd415 resolve_call ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3631 0x6cd9c3 resolve_typebound_call ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:6232 0x6cba4d resolve_typebound_subroutine ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:6522 0x6cba4d gfc_resolve_code(gfc_code*, gfc_namespace*) ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:11328 0x6cc95a resolve_codes ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:16564 0x6cc857 resolve_codes ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:16548 0x6cca5e gfc_resolve(gfc_namespace*) ../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:16599 0x6b6464 gfc_parse_file() ../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:6262 0x6fd22f gfc_be_parse_file ../../gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:204
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #2 from DIL --- For GFORTRAN 6.4.0 and earlier, the relevant compiler bug has been fixed in 78300.
[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2017-12-22 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Self-contained reduced test for gfortran 7.2.0 and trunk (8.0) module gfc_base implicit none type, public:: gfc_cont_elem_t class(*), pointer, private:: value_p=>NULL() contains procedure, public:: construct_base=>ContElemConstruct end type gfc_cont_elem_t abstract interface function gfc_copy_i(obj,ierr) result(clone) class(*), pointer:: clone class(*), intent(in), target:: obj integer(4), intent(out), optional:: ierr end function gfc_copy_i end interface private ContElemConstruct contains subroutine ContElemConstruct(this,obj,ierr,assoc_only,copy_ctor_f,locked) !`GCC/5.3.0 has a bug with this line implicit none class(gfc_cont_elem_t), intent(inout):: this class(*), intent(in), target:: obj integer(4), intent(out), optional:: ierr logical, intent(in), optional:: assoc_only procedure(gfc_copy_i), optional:: copy_ctor_f logical, intent(in), optional:: locked end subroutine ContElemConstruct end module gfc_base module gfc_vector use gfc_base implicit none private type, extends(gfc_cont_elem_t), public:: vector_elem_t contains procedure, private:: VectorElemConstruct end type vector_elem_t contains subroutine VectorElemConstruct(this,obj,ierr,assoc_only,copy_ctor_f) !`GCC has a bug with this line implicit none class(vector_elem_t), intent(inout):: this class(*), target, intent(in):: obj integer(4), intent(out), optional:: ierr logical, intent(in), optional:: assoc_only procedure(gfc_copy_i), optional:: copy_ctor_f integer(4) :: errc call this%construct_base(obj,errc,copy_ctor_f=copy_ctor_f) end subroutine VectorElemConstruct end module gfc_vector Gfortran 6.4.0 and earlier gives the error subroutine ContElemConstruct(this,obj,ierr,assoc_only,copy_ctor_f,locked) !`GCC/5.3.0 has a bug with this line 1 Error: CLASS variable 'copy_ctor_f' at (1) must be dummy, allocatable or pointer
