| Message ID | CAKwh3qgMVoMjr_sHtbr6Xh9JaZXwOHiPecxaMTaos0kT=aZZqA@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
2016-12-17 22:49 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>: > Hi Mikael, > >>> I have just committed a completely obvious patch for this PR. All it >>> does is rearrange some expressions to avoid an ICE (see attachment): >>> >> I have made a late review of it, and I think it’s not as innocent as it >> seems. >> With it, if the first element’s formal is not properly set, the rest of the >> generic linked list is ignored. >> >> Here is a variant of the testcase committed. >> It shows no error if the module procedure line is commented, and two errors >> if it’s uncommented, one error saying that the write of z2 should use DTIO. >> The latter error should not appear. > > thanks for the comment, and sorry that I didn't notice this problem. > > The attached patch should fix it. What do you think about it? > > Btw, with trunk r243776 I get an ICE on your test case, when the > module procedure is commented out. You don't see this? I have opened PR 78848 for this. Cheers, Janus
Le 17/12/2016 à 22:49, Janus Weil a écrit : > Hi Mikael, > >>> I have just committed a completely obvious patch for this PR. All it >>> does is rearrange some expressions to avoid an ICE (see attachment): >>> >> I have made a late review of it, and I think it’s not as innocent as it >> seems. >> With it, if the first element’s formal is not properly set, the rest of the >> generic linked list is ignored. >> >> Here is a variant of the testcase committed. >> It shows no error if the module procedure line is commented, and two errors >> if it’s uncommented, one error saying that the write of z2 should use DTIO. >> The latter error should not appear. > > thanks for the comment, and sorry that I didn't notice this problem. > > The attached patch should fix it. What do you think about it? > Yes, it looks good. > Btw, with trunk r243776 I get an ICE on your test case, when the > module procedure is commented out. You don't see this? > My trunk is from the 8 december (r243465), and I don’t see it. So it should be a quite recent regression. Mikael
2016-12-18 11:18 GMT+01:00 Mikael Morin <morin-mikael@orange.fr>: > Le 17/12/2016 à 22:49, Janus Weil a écrit : >> >> Hi Mikael, >> >>>> I have just committed a completely obvious patch for this PR. All it >>>> does is rearrange some expressions to avoid an ICE (see attachment): >>>> >>> I have made a late review of it, and I think it’s not as innocent as it >>> seems. >>> With it, if the first element’s formal is not properly set, the rest of >>> the >>> generic linked list is ignored. >>> >>> Here is a variant of the testcase committed. >>> It shows no error if the module procedure line is commented, and two >>> errors >>> if it’s uncommented, one error saying that the write of z2 should use >>> DTIO. >>> The latter error should not appear. >> >> >> thanks for the comment, and sorry that I didn't notice this problem. >> >> The attached patch should fix it. What do you think about it? >> > Yes, it looks good. Ok, will commit this to trunk together with your test case. >> Btw, with trunk r243776 I get an ICE on your test case, when the >> module procedure is commented out. You don't see this? >> > My trunk is from the 8 december (r243465), and I don’t see it. > So it should be a quite recent regression. That confirms my suspicion that it was introduced by r243609. Thanks again for finding both of these problems ;) Cheers, Janus
2016-12-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>: > 2016-12-18 11:18 GMT+01:00 Mikael Morin <morin-mikael@orange.fr>: >> Le 17/12/2016 à 22:49, Janus Weil a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Mikael, >>> >>>>> I have just committed a completely obvious patch for this PR. All it >>>>> does is rearrange some expressions to avoid an ICE (see attachment): >>>>> >>>> I have made a late review of it, and I think it’s not as innocent as it >>>> seems. >>>> With it, if the first element’s formal is not properly set, the rest of >>>> the >>>> generic linked list is ignored. >>>> >>>> Here is a variant of the testcase committed. >>>> It shows no error if the module procedure line is commented, and two >>>> errors >>>> if it’s uncommented, one error saying that the write of z2 should use >>>> DTIO. >>>> The latter error should not appear. >>> >>> >>> thanks for the comment, and sorry that I didn't notice this problem. >>> >>> The attached patch should fix it. What do you think about it? >>> >> Yes, it looks good. > > Ok, will commit this to trunk together with your test case. Committed as r243783 after successful regtest: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243783&root=gcc&view=rev Cheers, Janus
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c =================================================================== --- gcc/fortran/interface.c (revision 243776) +++ gcc/fortran/interface.c (working copy) @@ -4949,17 +4949,19 @@ gfc_find_specific_dtio_proc (gfc_symbol *derived, && tb_io_st->n.sym->generic) { for (gfc_interface *intr = tb_io_st->n.sym->generic; - intr && intr->sym && intr->sym->formal; - intr = intr->next) + intr && intr->sym; intr = intr->next) { - gfc_symbol *fsym = intr->sym->formal->sym; - if ((fsym->ts.type == BT_CLASS - && CLASS_DATA (fsym)->ts.u.derived == extended) - || (fsym->ts.type == BT_DERIVED - && fsym->ts.u.derived == extended)) + if (intr->sym->formal) { - dtio_sub = intr->sym; - break; + gfc_symbol *fsym = intr->sym->formal->sym; + if ((fsym->ts.type == BT_CLASS + && CLASS_DATA (fsym)->ts.u.derived == extended) + || (fsym->ts.type == BT_DERIVED + && fsym->ts.u.derived == extended)) + { + dtio_sub = intr->sym; + break; + } } } }