Hi All,
I have extended the testcase - see below and have
s/dependent_decls_2/dependent_decls_2.f90/ in the ChnageLog.
Cheers
Paul
! { dg-do run }
!
! Fix for PR59104 in which the dependence on the old style function result
! was not taken into account in the ordering of auto array allocation and
! characters with dependent lengths.
!
! Contributed by Tobias Burnus <bur...@gcc.gnu.org>
!
module m
implicit none
integer, parameter :: dp = kind([double precision::])
contains
function f(x)
integer, intent(in) :: x
real(dp) f(x/2)
real(dp) g(x/2)
integer y(size (f)+1) ! This was the original problem
integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! Found in development of the fix
integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x) ! Check dummy is OK
f = 10.0
y = 1 ! Stop -Wall from complaining
z = 1
g = 1
w = 1
if (size (f) .ne. 1) stop 1
if (size (g) .ne. 1) stop 2
if (size (y) .ne. 2) stop 3
if (size (z) .ne. 3) stop 4
if (size (w) .ne. 5) stop 5
end function f
function e(x) result(f)
integer, intent(in) :: x
real(dp) f(x/2)
real(dp) g(x/2)
integer y(size (f)+1)
integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! As was this.
integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x)
f = 10.0
y = 1
z = 1
g = 1
w = 1
if (size (f) .ne. 2) stop 6
if (size (g) .ne. 2) stop 7
if (size (y) .ne. 3) stop 8
if (size (z) .ne. 5) stop 9
if (size (w) .ne. 9) stop 10
end function
function d(x) ! After fixes to arrays, what was needed was known!
integer, intent(in) :: x
character(len = x/2) :: d
character(len = len (d)) :: line
character(len = len (d) + len (line)) :: line2
character(len = len (d) + len (line) + x) :: line3
line = repeat ("a", len (d))
line2 = repeat ("b", x)
line3 = repeat ("c", len (line3))
if (len (line2) .ne. x) stop 11
if (line3 .ne. "cccccccc") stop 12
d = line
end
end module m
program p
use m
implicit none
real(dp) y
y = sum (f (2))
if (int (y) .ne. 10) stop 13
y = sum (e (4))
if (int (y) .ne. 20) stop 14
if (d (4) .ne. "aa") stop 15
end program p
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 at 07:14, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The attached fixes a problem that, judging by the comments, has been
> looked at periodically over the last ten years but just looked to be too
> fiendishly complicated to fix. This is not in small part because of the
> confusing ordering of dummies in the tlink chain and the unintuitive
> placement of all deferred initializations to the front of the init chain in
> the wrapped block.
>
> The result of the existing ordering is that the initialization code for
> non-dummy variables that depends on the function result occurs before any
> initialization code for the function result itself. The fix ensures that:
> (i) These variables are placed correctly in the tlink chain, respecting
> inter-dependencies; and (ii) The dependent initializations are placed at
> the end of the wrapped block init chain. The details appear in the
> comments in the patch. It is entirely possible that a less clunky fix
> exists but I failed to find it.
>
> OK for mainline?
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
