| Message ID | 4E3856F4.8090209@domob.eu |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Daniel Kraft wrote: > after a loooong while, here's another patch from me. It is a one-line > fix for PR 49885, which was introduced by me last year. While the patch > should be simple, it wasn't that easy to find the fix (for me at least) > ... but I think it should be fairly easy to see now. For some kind of > analysis, you can look at my comments in the PR. Seemingly, I guessed correctly how the fix had to look like (comment 3). Though, the real work is to spot the right place where it goes wrong. Thanks got tracing this down and fixing it! > No regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? OK for the trunk and for 4.6 (as it is a regression). Tobias PS: Do you plan to do now some more gfortran work? Or do you completely lack the time?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/02/11 22:04, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Daniel Kraft wrote: >> after a loooong while, here's another patch from me. It is a >> one-line fix for PR 49885, which was introduced by me last year. >> While the patch should be simple, it wasn't that easy to find the >> fix (for me at least) ... but I think it should be fairly easy to >> see now. For some kind of analysis, you can look at my comments in >> the PR. > > Seemingly, I guessed correctly how the fix had to look like (comment > 3). Though, the real work is to spot the right place where it goes > wrong. Thanks got tracing this down and fixing it! Ah, yes! I must have overlooked that comment completely ... maybe it would have saved me some time. But anyway, I found the correct fix. ;) >> No regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > > OK for the trunk and for 4.6 (as it is a regression). Thanks for the review. Committed as rev. 177211 on trunk, I will backport it to 4.6. Can I do so tomorrow or should I rather wait for a week? > PS: Do you plan to do now some more gfortran work? Or do you > completely lack the time? Hm, good question. I hope that I will have at least some time over the coming two months, but I can't really promise. I still have some exams to do and also other work. So probably only small fixes, unfortunately. But I'll try to do at least those occasionally. Yours, Daniel - -- OpenPGP: 3BA2 3DDB 7758 F010 BDAB 0DCF 527E 79BA A3B5 3998 or use https://safesend.domob.eu/ - -- Done: Arc-Bar-Cav-Kni-Ran-Rog-Sam-Tou-Val-Wiz To go: Hea-Mon-Pri -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOOFtMAAoJEFJ+ebqjtTmYDP8P/ja55A5fdHkXVaWXZijXRH1u QHlAbqZf/JKpH2qefGP1gtfPDh7glDh/Scsv42a1KezBLT2dILY8iVp8FsadNiLx fNhZtCozDrlhYhGvBy2IoN4+lgnW6zkPaWSvrBJVCOme0mP8h9bNje5tGo9RjLJv E7Oi4NJaJfae9leP9CkSf5u13qV0DwPDp4NwLGXRqYKtgrXX0KbhoWqBZnWwHJfS vJyerg6ps/pOCnSEqxP9cTs1GHvGEqUTVVBwNJnY0K8LwewnWXunyFH7sWZAQaou DkDnxns6Opj9yRX3QMeas1Gdud+mBVlovfzzcRMyKrxNfemlgyeCK1E3udDN6Fgx nTseuV4tljA2eLA2XzPwEQd4Cd6bm1ch16XAz5eTkSc6JCuSBqTvs4+W/I6W1Lxd M+rZvmBrLFIdff4BWESEIXVSW0uNhltn/nr7/actPPHlyHEhfPK2I6sDR9KyMric FfXOp1RJQEKfYCH7Y4wqcxGkkXPqGZVJdeylSgaOw8WpcSULpVylpZ5nd5tx1a9H OkIMK/ORVmxNeS4XHsxVCYjz7IYc8WIlmFj9q838R9jf3ozKp5DqWVOAylN3+EQd iXI/t/fcMeooIp0HuBeWwI3IQHlJapJumqEo8zVMgBvWsEwfWB0Tj7uWMrNlmUx/ PaMRvRHXu8nfMauGXYu0 =dvk6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/02/11 22:04, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Daniel Kraft wrote: >> No regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > > OK for the trunk and for 4.6 (as it is a regression). And committed on 4.6 branch as rev. 177249, there also were no regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I'll close the PR now. Yours, Daniel - -- OpenPGP: 3BA2 3DDB 7758 F010 BDAB 0DCF 527E 79BA A3B5 3998 or use https://safesend.domob.eu/ - -- Done: Arc-Bar-Cav-Kni-Ran-Rog-Sam-Tou-Val-Wiz To go: Hea-Mon-Pri -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOORgiAAoJEFJ+ebqjtTmYYAsP/i2U3SaqOMAQe75hg6/e4GaN 6Fq2svUk7wN5ooMN+01zNYKi1igeqOKGyLpEycMJAseZ8bYn6C2KtXWuJdNN+JGl u2e95FkrkHSwO6a3jGYBSFXeor3/fUsk8TPKEyk12Be61C4p6mlgnCyNj6OadSZs Okujz3VCFj0FEtoD2FO+JAOtHMuDY/PW8sZR0M8hlJzGme2INpEf5J57/hSQk7EP X7TSMiy1/i9cmAHS91VGN8PTcRQo6y3vI+PN2ymZ8EAY0WPNeyUQO4Q5NDV9XP1T yRi6NDGWLDjOReXy0ne80NrZWCUQi8ihMPqa/QXDlsF5h60hkHMqwfXX9rvxw6Kc jLELEGqP3kTgBZuBfN3wCZwd8FSakc1vBBgfKkOEel3xw1DCa+9fp0Bz+CO9Zc3E vbLns2GHvJg+hVu495BZlgC16MhbxzJLM4uTMoL4NsR+vazS71w4fSlh2lWvQrQr CdMILamqsm4MZmc5z6SH7zD2aMWCVt/k7isSfj7kAtvYdXg0xnIxDPBgI28c7oTm OU/o53es91Y3cj4ISilqooZIEwUKvt+cRJF851j0ZfsVp3iDFlatraHCQGYTM/5s EyboGV7mpos4BOxx2V5XroviHR2D6t4NRVoZnBgpQUEeAH82oAGAMiQGVMOsYpH4 MIaKxOcSL0G/JVhQb1uF =FK7V -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c =================================================================== --- gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (revision 176950) +++ gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (working copy) @@ -4882,7 +4882,7 @@ gcc_assert (GFC_ARRAY_TYPE_P (type)); onstack = TREE_CODE (type) != POINTER_TYPE; - gfc_start_block (&init); + gfc_init_block (&init); /* Evaluate character string length. */ if (sym->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/auto_char_dummy_array_3.f90 =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/auto_char_dummy_array_3.f90 (revision 0) +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/auto_char_dummy_array_3.f90 (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +! { dg-do run } + +! PR fortran/49885 +! Check that character arrays with non-constant char-length are handled +! correctly. + +! Contributed by Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu>, +! based on original test case and variant by Tobias Burnus in comment 2. + +PROGRAM main + IMPLICIT NONE + + CALL s (10) + +CONTAINS + + SUBROUTINE s (nb) + INTEGER :: nb + CHARACTER(MAX (80, nb)) :: bad_rec(1) + + bad_rec(1)(1:2) = 'abc' + IF (bad_rec(1)(1:2) /= 'ab') CALL abort () + END SUBROUTINE s + +END PROGRAM main