diff mbox

[Fortran,pr68218,backport,to,5,and,4.9,v1] ALLOCATE with size given by a module function

Message ID 20151127132022.137034e4@vepi2
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Andre Vehreschild Nov. 27, 2015, 12:20 p.m. UTC 
Hi all,

I have backported the patch for 68218 (multiple calls of the same
function, where only one call is expected and reasonable) to
gcc-5-branch and gcc-4_9-branch.

Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu/f21.

Ok for gcc-5-branch?

Ok for gcc-4_9-branch?

The Changelog is identical for both patches. The patches are mostly,
too, just a slight shift.

Regards,
	Andre

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:48:50 +0100
Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> thanks for the review. Comitted as r229956.
> 
> In 5 and 4.9 the same issue exists. Currently checking whether the same
> patch helps.
> 
> Regards,
> 	Andre
> 
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:58:35 +0100
> Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Andre,
> > 
> > OK for trunk.
> > 
> > I understand that you have investigated the issue(s) reported to you
> > by Dominique and can find no sign of them.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > On 5 November 2015 at 15:29, Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > attached is a rather trivial patch to prevent multiple evaluations of a
> > > function in:
> > >
> > >   allocate( array(func()) )
> > >
> > > The patch tests whether the upper bound of the array is a function
> > > and calls gfc_evaluate_now().
> > >
> > > Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64-linux-gnu/f21.
> > >
> > > Ok for trunk?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >         Andre
> > > --
> > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Comments

Mikael Morin Nov. 27, 2015, 1:09 p.m. UTC | #1 
Le 27/11/2015 13:20, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I have backported the patch for 68218 (multiple calls of the same
> function, where only one call is expected and reasonable) to
> gcc-5-branch and gcc-4_9-branch.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu/f21.
>
> Ok for gcc-5-branch?
>
> Ok for gcc-4_9-branch?
>
Yes for both.
Richi said in [1] that a 5.3 release candidate was planned for either 
today or next monday, so before proceeding, please ping one release 
manager on IRC to check that your commit won't interfere with the 
release process.
Thanks

Mikael

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-11/msg00186.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
index 9c175b1..3c2c640 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
@@ -5030,6 +5030,8 @@  gfc_array_init_size (tree descriptor, int rank, int corank, tree * poffset,
       gcc_assert (ubound);
       gfc_conv_expr_type (&se, ubound, gfc_array_index_type);
       gfc_add_block_to_block (pblock, &se.pre);
+      if (ubound->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION)
+	se.expr = gfc_evaluate_now (se.expr, pblock);
 
       gfc_conv_descriptor_ubound_set (descriptor_block, descriptor,
 				      gfc_rank_cst[n], se.expr);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocate_with_arrayspec_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocate_with_arrayspec_1.f90
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..686b612
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocate_with_arrayspec_1.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ 
+! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
+
+MODULE mo_test
+
+  integer :: n = 0
+CONTAINS
+
+  FUNCTION nquery()
+    INTEGER :: nquery
+    WRITE (0,*) "hello!"
+    n = n + 1
+    nquery = n
+  END FUNCTION nquery
+
+END MODULE mo_test
+
+
+! ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+! MAIN PROGRAM
+! ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+PROGRAM example
+   USE mo_test
+   INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE :: query_buf(:)
+   ALLOCATE(query_buf(nquery()))
+   if (n /= 1 .or. size(query_buf) /= n) call abort()
+END PROGRAM example
+
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "nquery" 5 "original" } }