Message ID | 2810bd1f-557a-bc29-8cb8-80a1c942fcfa@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [fortran] PR fortran/100018 - ICE on missing polymorphic argument | expand |
Hi José, On 10.04.21 18:58, José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Fortran wrote: > Proposed patch to PR100018 - ICE on missing polymorphic argument. > Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. LGTM – Thanks for the patch. Two nits: If you don't want to rely on the author field of git and specify an extra line, you need a '0' for the moth in the date (-04- instead of -4-). And you need an additional single-line summary for git – which should be part of the patch submission. Tobias > > Add association check before de-referencing pointer in order to avoid > ICE. > > Thank you very much. > > Best regards, > José Rui > > > 2021-4-10 José Rui Faustino de Sousa <jrfsousa@gmail.com> > > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: > > PR fortran/100018 > * resolve.c: Add association check before de-referencing > pointer. > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > PR fortran/100018 > * gfortran.dg/PR10018.f90: New test. >
On 10/04/21 17:37, Tobias Burnus wrote: > And you need an additional single-line summary for git – which should be > part of the patch submission. > Fortran: Fix ICE due to referencing a NULL pointer [PR100018] gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/100018 * resolve.c: Add association check before de-referencing pointer. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/100018 * gfortran.dg/PR10018.f90: New test. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui
On 10.04.21 22:45, José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Fortran wrote: > On 10/04/21 17:37, Tobias Burnus wrote: >> And you need an additional single-line summary for git – which should >> be part of the patch submission. In case you are waiting for me, I did write: 'LGTM – Thanks for the patch. Two nits:' and expected that you just fixed them when committing the patch. (Actually, as they were tiny comments and to the commit log only, I did not even expect a posting of the committed patch or its commit log.) But as you didn't commit it it yet, I gathered you are waiting for me. Hence, you get another LGTM from me :-) Thanks again for the patch – and the other patches (which still need to be reviewed). Tobias > Fortran: Fix ICE due to referencing a NULL pointer [PR100018] > > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: > > PR fortran/100018 > * resolve.c: Add association check before de-referencing > pointer. > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > PR fortran/100018 > * gfortran.dg/PR10018.f90: New test. > > > Thank you very much. > > Best regards, > José Rui ----------------- Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) GmbH, Arnulfstrasse 201, 80634 München Registergericht München HRB 106955, Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c index 1c9b0c5cb62..dd4b26680e0 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c @@ -11999,6 +11999,7 @@ start: /* Assigning a class object always is a regular assign. */ if (code->expr2->ts.type == BT_CLASS && code->expr1->ts.type == BT_CLASS + && CLASS_DATA (code->expr2) && !CLASS_DATA (code->expr2)->attr.dimension && !(gfc_expr_attr (code->expr1).proc_pointer && code->expr2->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR10018.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR10018.f90 new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..f1cf2676f85 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR10018.f90 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +! { dg-do compile } +! +subroutine foo(that) + implicit none + class(*), target, intent(in) :: this + class(*), pointer, intent(out) :: that + + that => this + return +end subroutine foo +! { dg-error "Symbol at \\\(1\\\) is not a DUMMY variable" "" { target "*-*-*" } 5 }