| Message ID | CAGkQGi+UYZgvAASee+kB0sPNc0qaHqO3JPBah6WHR9EiBX_nuA@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Dear Paul, Paul Richard Thomas: > A question for the standard aficianados: Are there other base object > expressions that are legal? I don't think so. (Ignoring RESHAPE, SPREAD etc., cf. PR 47505.) > Bootstrapped and regtested on FC9/x86_64 - OK for trunk? OK. Thanks for the patch. > *************** resolve_ordinary_assign (gfc_code *code, > *** 9208,9215 **** > ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L", > ! &lhs->where); > --- 9208,9216 ---- > ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L " > ! "- check that there is a matching specific subroutine " > ! "for '=' operator",&lhs->where); I have to admit that I like the initial wording better - with "in assignment" changed to "in intrinsic assignment". (In F2008, I would even write: "Nonallocatable variable", but gfortran does not yet support allocatable with intrinsic assignments.) (By the way, there is no matching defined assignment - no need for the users to check whether there is one; they only need to check why there is none ;-) Tobias
Dear All, Committed as r183032. Thanks Paul On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de> wrote: > Dear Paul, > > Paul Richard Thomas: > >> A question for the standard aficianados: Are there other base object >> expressions that are legal? > > > I don't think so. (Ignoring RESHAPE, SPREAD etc., cf. PR 47505.) > > >> Bootstrapped and regtested on FC9/x86_64 - OK for trunk? > > > OK. Thanks for the patch. > >> *************** resolve_ordinary_assign (gfc_code *code, >> *** 9208,9215 **** >> ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L", >> ! &lhs->where); >> --- 9208,9216 ---- >> ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L " >> ! "- check that there is a matching specific subroutine " >> ! "for '=' operator",&lhs->where); > > > I have to admit that I like the initial wording better - with "in > assignment" changed to "in intrinsic assignment". (In F2008, I would even > write: "Nonallocatable variable", but gfortran does not yet support > allocatable with intrinsic assignments.) > > (By the way, there is no matching defined assignment - no need for the users > to check whether there is one; they only need to check why there is none ;-) > > Tobias
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_10.f03 =================================================================== *** gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_10.f03 (revision 0) --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_10.f03 (revision 0) *************** *** 0 **** --- 1,29 ---- + ! { dg-do compile } + ! PR51791 and original testcase for PR46328. + ! + ! Contributer by Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org> + ! + module field_module + implicit none + type ,abstract :: field + contains + procedure(field_op_real) ,deferred :: multiply_real + generic :: operator(*) => multiply_real + end type + abstract interface + function field_op_real(lhs,rhs) + import :: field + class(field) ,intent(in) :: lhs + real ,intent(in) :: rhs + class(field) ,allocatable :: field_op_real + end function + end interface + end module + + program main + use field_module + implicit none + class(field) ,pointer :: u + u = (u)*2. ! { dg-error "check that there is a matching specific" } + end program + ! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "field_module" } } Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_7.f03 =================================================================== *** gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_7.f03 (revision 182988) --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_7.f03 (working copy) *************** program main *** 90,96 **** class(i_field) ,allocatable :: u allocate (u, source = i_field (99)) ! u = u*2. u = (u*2.0*4.0) + u*4.0 u = u%multiply_real (2.0)*4.0 u = i_multiply_real (u, 2.0) * 4.0 --- 90,96 ---- class(i_field) ,allocatable :: u allocate (u, source = i_field (99)) ! u = (u)*2. u = (u*2.0*4.0) + u*4.0 u = u%multiply_real (2.0)*4.0 u = i_multiply_real (u, 2.0) * 4.0 Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c =================================================================== *** gcc/fortran/interface.c (revision 182988) --- gcc/fortran/interface.c (working copy) *************** matching_typebound_op (gfc_expr** tb_bas *** 3168,3173 **** --- 3168,3177 ---- gfc_symbol* derived; gfc_try result; + while (base->expr->expr_type == EXPR_OP + && base->expr->value.op.op == INTRINSIC_PARENTHESES) + base->expr = base->expr->value.op.op1; + if (base->expr->ts.type == BT_CLASS) { if (!gfc_expr_attr (base->expr).class_ok) Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c =================================================================== *** gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 182988) --- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (working copy) *************** resolve_ordinary_assign (gfc_code *code, *** 9208,9215 **** and coindexed; cf. F2008, 7.2.1.2 and PR 43366. */ if (lhs->ts.type == BT_CLASS) { ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L", ! &lhs->where); return false; } --- 9208,9216 ---- and coindexed; cf. F2008, 7.2.1.2 and PR 43366. */ if (lhs->ts.type == BT_CLASS) { ! gfc_error ("Variable must not be polymorphic in assignment at %L " ! "- check that there is a matching specific subroutine " ! "for '=' operator", &lhs->where); return false; }