| Message ID | trinity-b7254ea8-17ae-420c-8b4a-756e3fe2a5f1-1693514575672@3c-app-gmx-bap28 |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fortran: runtime bounds-checking in presence of array constructors [PR31059] | expand |
Le 31/08/2023 à 22:42, Harald Anlauf via Fortran a écrit : > Dear all, > > gfortran's array bounds-checking code does a mostly reasonable > job for array sections in expressions and assignments, but > forgot the case that (rank-1) expressions can involve array > constructors, which have a shape ;-) > > The attached patch walks over the loops generated by the > scalarizer, checks for the presence of a constructor, and > takes the first shape found as reference. (If several > constructors are present, discrepancies in their shape > seems to be already detected at compile time). > > For more details on what will be caught now see testcase. > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > This is OK. May I suggest to handle functions the same way? Thanks. > Thanks, > Harald >
Hi Mikael, On 9/1/23 10:41, Mikael Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: > Le 31/08/2023 à 22:42, Harald Anlauf via Fortran a écrit : >> Dear all, >> >> gfortran's array bounds-checking code does a mostly reasonable >> job for array sections in expressions and assignments, but >> forgot the case that (rank-1) expressions can involve array >> constructors, which have a shape ;-) >> >> The attached patch walks over the loops generated by the >> scalarizer, checks for the presence of a constructor, and >> takes the first shape found as reference. (If several >> constructors are present, discrepancies in their shape >> seems to be already detected at compile time). >> >> For more details on what will be caught now see testcase. >> >> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? >> > This is OK. I've pushed this is the first step. > May I suggest to handle functions the same way? I'll have a look at them, but will need to gather a few suitable testcases first. Thanks for the review! Harald > > Thanks. > >> Thanks, >> Harald >> > >
Le 01/09/2023 à 22:48, Harald Anlauf a écrit : > Hi Mikael, > > On 9/1/23 10:41, Mikael Morin via Gcc-patches wrote: >> May I suggest to handle functions the same way? > > I'll have a look at them, but will need to gather a few > suitable testcases first. > I have just opened PR111339 (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111339) to track the case of functions separately.
From 944a35909e8eeb79c92e398ae3f27e94708584e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 22:19:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: runtime bounds-checking in presence of array constructors [PR31059] gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/31059 * trans-array.cc (gfc_conv_ss_startstride): For array bounds checking, consider also array constructors in expressions, and use their shape. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/31059 * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_5.f90: New test. --- gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc | 23 ++++++++++++++++ .../gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_5.f90 | 26 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_5.f90 diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc index 90a7d4e9aef..6ca58e98547 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc @@ -4740,6 +4740,29 @@ done: for (n = 0; n < loop->dimen; n++) size[n] = NULL_TREE; + /* If there is a constructor involved, derive size[] from its shape. */ + for (ss = loop->ss; ss != gfc_ss_terminator; ss = ss->loop_chain) + { + gfc_ss_info *ss_info; + + ss_info = ss->info; + info = &ss_info->data.array; + + if (ss_info->type == GFC_SS_CONSTRUCTOR && info->shape) + { + for (n = 0; n < loop->dimen; n++) + { + if (size[n] == NULL) + { + gcc_assert (info->shape[n]); + size[n] = gfc_conv_mpz_to_tree (info->shape[n], + gfc_index_integer_kind); + } + } + break; + } + } + for (ss = loop->ss; ss != gfc_ss_terminator; ss = ss->loop_chain) { stmtblock_t inner; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_5.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_5.f90 new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..436cc96621d --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_5.f90 @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +! { dg-do run } +! { dg-additional-options "-fcheck=bounds -g -fdump-tree-original" } +! { dg-output "At line 13 .*" } +! { dg-shouldfail "Array bound mismatch for dimension 1 of array 'ivec' (2/3)" } +! +! PR fortran/31059 - runtime bounds-checking in presence of array constructors + +program p + integer :: jvec(3) = [1,2,3] + integer, allocatable :: ivec(:), kvec(:), lvec(:), mvec(:), nvec(:) + ivec = [1,2] ! (re)allocation + kvec = [4,5,6] ! (re)allocation + ivec(:) = [4,5,6] ! runtime error (->dump) + ! not reached ... + print *, jvec + [1,2,3] ! OK & no check generated + print *, [4,5,6] + jvec ! OK & no check generated + print *, lvec + [1,2,3] ! check generated (->dump) + print *, [4,5,6] + mvec ! check generated (->dump) + nvec(:) = jvec ! check generated (->dump) +end + +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Array bound mismatch " 4 "original" } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Array bound mismatch .*ivec" 1 "original" } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Array bound mismatch .*lvec" 1 "original" } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Array bound mismatch .*mvec" 1 "original" } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Array bound mismatch .*nvec" 1 "original" } } -- 2.35.3