diff mbox series

[fortran] PRs 46691 and 99819: Assumed and explicit size class arrays

Message ID CAGkQGiKopn25B6ReJSmcvW4qLfs_Z+GSmOWwWOMBVLP2qF_uWQ@mail.gmail.com
State New
Headers show
Series [fortran] PRs 46691 and 99819: Assumed and explicit size class arrays | expand

Commit Message

Paul Richard Thomas May 6, 2021, 6:57 a.m. UTC 
Hi All,

Although I had undertaken to concentrate on PDTs, PR99819 so intrigued me
that I became locked into it :-( After extensive, fruitless rummaging
through decl.c and trans-decl.c, I realised that the problem was far
simpler than it seemed and that it lay in class.c. After that PR was fixed,
PR46691 was a trivial follow up.

The comments in the patch explain the fixes. I left a TODO for the extent
checking of assumed size class arrays. I will try to fix it before pushing.

Regtested on FC33/x86_64 and checked against the 'other brand'. OK for
12-branch and, perhaps, 11-branch?

Regards

Paul

Fortran: Assumed and explicit size class arrays [PR46691/99819].

2021-05-06  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

gcc/fortran/ChangeLog

PR fortran/46691
PR fortran/99819
* class.c (gfc_build_class_symbol): Class array types that are
not deferred shape or assumed rank are given a unique name and
placed in the procedure namespace.
* trans-array.c (gfc_trans_g77_array): Obtain the data pointer
for class arrays.
(gfc_trans_dummy_array_bias): Suppress the runtime error for
extent violations in explicit shape class arrays because it
always fails.
* trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Handle assumed size
class actual arguments passed to non-descriptor formal args by
using the data pointer, stored as the symbol's backend decl.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

PR fortran/46691
PR fortran/99819
* gfortran.dg/class_dummy_6.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/class_dummy_6.f90: New test.

Comments

Paul Richard Thomas May 6, 2021, 8:11 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi All,

Please find below a corrected ChangeLog.

Sorry that I didn't get it right first go.

Paul

Fortran: Assumed and explicit size class arrays [PR46691/99819].

2021-05-06  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

gcc/fortran/ChangeLog

PR fortran/46691
PR fortran/99819
* class.c (gfc_build_class_symbol): Remove the error that
disables assumed size class arrays. Class array types that are
not deferred shape or assumed rank are given a unique name and
placed in the procedure namespace.
* trans-array.c (gfc_trans_g77_array): Obtain the data pointer
for class arrays.
(gfc_trans_dummy_array_bias): Suppress the runtime error for
extent violations in explicit shape class arrays because it
always fails.
* trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Handle assumed size
class actual arguments passed to non-descriptor formal args by
using the data pointer, stored as the symbol's backend decl.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

PR fortran/46691
PR fortran/99819
* gfortran.dg/class_dummy_6.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/class_dummy_7.f90: New test.


On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 07:57, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Although I had undertaken to concentrate on PDTs, PR99819 so intrigued me
> that I became locked into it :-( After extensive, fruitless rummaging
> through decl.c and trans-decl.c, I realised that the problem was far
> simpler than it seemed and that it lay in class.c. After that PR was fixed,
> PR46691 was a trivial follow up.
>
> The comments in the patch explain the fixes. I left a TODO for the extent
> checking of assumed size class arrays. I will try to fix it before pushing.
>
> Regtested on FC33/x86_64 and checked against the 'other brand'. OK for
> 12-branch and, perhaps, 11-branch?
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> Fortran: Assumed and explicit size class arrays [PR46691/99819].
>
> 2021-05-06  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
>
> PR fortran/46691
> PR fortran/99819
> * class.c (gfc_build_class_symbol): Class array types that are
> not deferred shape or assumed rank are given a unique name and
> placed in the procedure namespace.
> * trans-array.c (gfc_trans_g77_array): Obtain the data pointer
> for class arrays.
> (gfc_trans_dummy_array_bias): Suppress the runtime error for
> extent violations in explicit shape class arrays because it
> always fails.
> * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Handle assumed size
> class actual arguments passed to non-descriptor formal args by
> using the data pointer, stored as the symbol's backend decl.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> PR fortran/46691
> PR fortran/99819
> * gfortran.dg/class_dummy_6.f90: New test.
> * gfortran.dg/class_dummy_6.f90: New test.
>
>
Andre Vehreschild May 6, 2021, 8:51 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Paul,

this and the Changelog LGTM at least for 12. Give it a consolidation time before
applying to 11. Having had some issues in the vicinity of the code you addressed
I am quite happy to see how easy the fix looks.

Any chances you can take a look at
     https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055990.html
?

Regards,
	Andre

On Thu, 6 May 2021 07:57:05 +0100
Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Although I had undertaken to concentrate on PDTs, PR99819 so intrigued me
> that I became locked into it :-( After extensive, fruitless rummaging
> through decl.c and trans-decl.c, I realised that the problem was far
> simpler than it seemed and that it lay in class.c. After that PR was fixed,
> PR46691 was a trivial follow up.
>
> The comments in the patch explain the fixes. I left a TODO for the extent
> checking of assumed size class arrays. I will try to fix it before pushing.
>
> Regtested on FC33/x86_64 and checked against the 'other brand'. OK for
> 12-branch and, perhaps, 11-branch?
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> Fortran: Assumed and explicit size class arrays [PR46691/99819].
>
> 2021-05-06  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
>
> PR fortran/46691
> PR fortran/99819
> * class.c (gfc_build_class_symbol): Class array types that are
> not deferred shape or assumed rank are given a unique name and
> placed in the procedure namespace.
> * trans-array.c (gfc_trans_g77_array): Obtain the data pointer
> for class arrays.
> (gfc_trans_dummy_array_bias): Suppress the runtime error for
> extent violations in explicit shape class arrays because it
> always fails.
> * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Handle assumed size
> class actual arguments passed to non-descriptor formal args by
> using the data pointer, stored as the symbol's backend decl.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> PR fortran/46691
> PR fortran/99819
> * gfortran.dg/class_dummy_6.f90: New test.
> * gfortran.dg/class_dummy_6.f90: New test.


--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
Jonathan Wakely May 6, 2021, 2:24 p.m. UTC | #3 
PR 46691 is the wrong PR number:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691

The comment in the testcase is wrong, and the ChangeLog file will get
auto-updated with the wrong number overnight (you can manually edit it
and push the fix tomorrow after it's been generated).
Paul Richard Thomas May 6, 2021, 4:15 p.m. UTC | #4 
Blast! Thanks for pointing it out. The testcase is in a directory
~/prs/pr46691, which I then took from the editor. Original sin and all
that.....

Paul


On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 17:06, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:

> PR 46691 is the wrong PR number:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
>
> The comment in the testcase is wrong, and the ChangeLog file will get
> auto-updated with the wrong number overnight (you can manually edit it
> and push the fix tomorrow after it's been generated).
>
>
>
Paul Richard Thomas May 6, 2021, 4:17 p.m. UTC | #5 
It's 46991 of course.

Many thanks

Paul


On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 17:15, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Blast! Thanks for pointing it out. The testcase is in a directory
> ~/prs/pr46691, which I then took from the editor. Original sin and all
> that.....
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 17:06, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> PR 46691 is the wrong PR number:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
>>
>> The comment in the testcase is wrong, and the ChangeLog file will get
>> auto-updated with the wrong number overnight (you can manually edit it
>> and push the fix tomorrow after it's been generated).
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" -
> Albert Einstein
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/class.c b/gcc/fortran/class.c
index 89353218417..93118ad3455 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/class.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/class.c
@@ -630,6 +630,7 @@  gfc_get_len_component (gfc_expr *e, int k)
    component '_vptr' which determines the dynamic type.  When this CLASS
    entity is unlimited polymorphic, then also add a component '_len' to
    store the length of string when that is stored in it.  */
+static int ctr = 0;
 
 bool
 gfc_build_class_symbol (gfc_typespec *ts, symbol_attribute *attr,
@@ -645,13 +646,6 @@  gfc_build_class_symbol (gfc_typespec *ts, symbol_attribute *attr,
 
   gcc_assert (as);
 
-  if (*as && (*as)->type == AS_ASSUMED_SIZE)
-    {
-      gfc_error ("Assumed size polymorphic objects or components, such "
-		 "as that at %C, have not yet been implemented");
-      return false;
-    }
-
   if (attr->class_ok)
     /* Class container has already been built.  */
     return true;
@@ -693,7 +687,30 @@  gfc_build_class_symbol (gfc_typespec *ts, symbol_attribute *attr,
   else
     ns = ts->u.derived->ns;
 
-  gfc_find_symbol (name, ns, 0, &fclass);
+  /* Although this might seem to be counterintuitive, we can build separate
+     class types with different array specs because the TKR interface checks
+     work on the declared type. All array type other than deferred shape or
+     assumed rank are added to the function namespace to ensure that they
+     are properly distinguished.  */
+  if (attr->dummy && !attr->codimension && (*as)
+      && !((*as)->type == AS_DEFERRED || (*as)->type == AS_ASSUMED_RANK))
+    {
+      char *sname;
+      ns = gfc_current_ns;
+      gfc_find_symbol (name, ns, 0, &fclass);
+      /* If a local class type with this name already exists, update the
+	 name with an index.  */
+      if (fclass)
+	{
+	  fclass = NULL;
+	  sname = xasprintf ("%s_%d", name, ++ctr);
+	  free (name);
+	  name = sname;
+	}
+    }
+  else
+    gfc_find_symbol (name, ns, 0, &fclass);
+
   if (fclass == NULL)
     {
       gfc_symtree *st;
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
index e99980fd223..6d38ea78273 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
@@ -6524,7 +6524,14 @@  gfc_trans_g77_array (gfc_symbol * sym, gfc_wrapped_block * block)
   /* Set the pointer itself if we aren't using the parameter directly.  */
   if (TREE_CODE (parm) != PARM_DECL)
     {
-      tmp = convert (TREE_TYPE (parm), GFC_DECL_SAVED_DESCRIPTOR (parm));
+      tmp = GFC_DECL_SAVED_DESCRIPTOR (parm);
+      if (sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS)
+	{
+	  tmp = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (input_location, tmp);
+	  tmp = gfc_class_data_get (tmp);
+	  tmp = gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get (tmp);
+	}
+      tmp = convert (TREE_TYPE (parm), tmp);
       gfc_add_modify (&init, parm, tmp);
     }
   stmt = gfc_finish_block (&init);
@@ -6626,7 +6633,8 @@  gfc_trans_dummy_array_bias (gfc_symbol * sym, tree tmpdesc,
       && VAR_P (sym->ts.u.cl->backend_decl))
     gfc_conv_string_length (sym->ts.u.cl, NULL, &init);
 
-  checkparm = (as->type == AS_EXPLICIT
+  /* TODO: Fix the exclusion of class arrays from extent checking.  */
+  checkparm = (as->type == AS_EXPLICIT && !is_classarray
 	       && (gfc_option.rtcheck & GFC_RTCHECK_BOUNDS));
 
   no_repack = !(GFC_DECL_PACKED_ARRAY (tmpdesc)
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
index 213f32b0a67..5f5479561c2 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
@@ -6420,6 +6420,15 @@  gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol * sym,
 				fsym ? fsym->attr.intent : INTENT_INOUT,
 				fsym && fsym->attr.pointer);
 
+	      else if (e->ts.type == BT_CLASS && CLASS_DATA (e)->as
+		       && CLASS_DATA (e)->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_SIZE
+		       && nodesc_arg && fsym->ts.type == BT_DERIVED)
+		/* An assumed size class actual argument being passed to
+		   a 'no descriptor' formal argument just requires the
+		   data pointer to be passed. For class dummy arguments
+		   this is stored in the symbol backend decl..  */
+		parmse.expr = e->symtree->n.sym->backend_decl;
+
 	      else if (gfc_is_class_array_ref (e, NULL)
 		       && fsym && fsym->ts.type == BT_DERIVED)
 		/* The actual argument is a component reference to an