| Message ID | 849f630f-e6fe-c3c3-e46a-3a64a86db4e3@netcologne.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [fortran] Fix PR 100227, write with implied DO loop | expand |
Looks OK Thomas, Good for backport as well. Regards, Jerry On 7/4/21 9:09 AM, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote: > Hello world, > > after a bit of an absence, I am now back, at least for some regression > fixing (and for reviewing patches, if that is called for). > > So, here's a regression fix to start with. > > OK for trunk and affected branches (down to 9)? > > Best regards > > Thomas > > Do not replace variable op variable in I/O implied DO loop replacement. > > This PR came about because index expressions of the form k+k in > implied DO loops in I/O statements were considered for replacement > by array slices. > > Fixed by only doing the transformation if the expression is of the > type expr OP contastant. > > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: > > PR fortran/100227 > * frontend-passes.c (traverse_io_block): Adjust test for > when a variable is eligible for the transformation to > array slice. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > PR fortran/100227 > * gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_7.f90: New test.
Hi Jerry, > Looks OK Thomas, > > Good for backport as well. Thanks. Committed to trunk so far, will add a git worktree for gcc11 next :-) Best regards Thomas
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c b/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c index 72a4e0410b1..996dcc2e547 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.c @@ -1299,8 +1299,8 @@ traverse_io_block (gfc_code *code, bool *has_reached, gfc_code *prev) std::swap (start->value.op.op1, start->value.op.op2); gcc_fallthrough (); case INTRINSIC_MINUS: - if ((start->value.op.op1->expr_type!= EXPR_VARIABLE - && start->value.op.op2->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT) + if (start->value.op.op1->expr_type!= EXPR_VARIABLE + || start->value.op.op2->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT || start->value.op.op1->ref) return false; if (!stack_top || !stack_top->iter diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_7.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_7.f90 new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..63927aafea9 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_7.f90 @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +! { dg-do run } +! PR 100227 - this was falsely optimized, leading to nonsense results. +! Original test case by "Mathieu". + +program p + implicit none + integer, parameter :: nbmode = 3 + integer :: k + real :: mass(nbmode*2) + character (len=80) :: line + do k = 1, nbmode*2 + mass(k) = k + end do + write (unit=line,fmt='(*(F6.2))') (mass(k+k), k=1,nbmode) + if (line /= ' 2.00 4.00 6.00') stop 1 +end program
Hello world, after a bit of an absence, I am now back, at least for some regression fixing (and for reviewing patches, if that is called for). So, here's a regression fix to start with. OK for trunk and affected branches (down to 9)? Best regards Thomas Do not replace variable op variable in I/O implied DO loop replacement. This PR came about because index expressions of the form k+k in implied DO loops in I/O statements were considered for replacement by array slices. Fixed by only doing the transformation if the expression is of the type expr OP contastant. gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/100227 * frontend-passes.c (traverse_io_block): Adjust test for when a variable is eligible for the transformation to array slice. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/100227 * gfortran.dg/implied_do_io_7.f90: New test.