Dear all,
while testing different stuff using code from the initial commit,
I figured that I copy-pasted erroneous code that could lead to
an infinite loop which did not update its control variable,
and an unhandled REF_INQUIRY in a switch statement.
Fixed and committed as simple and obvious, also in the function
from where I plagiated... ;-) after regtesting.
See r15-8040-ga5d56278d145d4 and attached.
Thanks,
Harald
Am 06.03.25 um 23:00 schrieb Steve Kargl:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:49:08PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Thanks for the speedy review!
It was a bit easier than normal. After I submitted
the PR, I started to poke around in fortran/resolve.cc
to see if I could deal with the issue. I saw that you
grab the PR last night, and left you to work your
magic.
From a5d56278d145d439092adf6f65c865c85623f881 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:46:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: improve checking of substring bounds [PR119118]
Commit r15-7873 copy-pasted erroneous code containing a non-terminating
loop that did not progress its control variable, and a switch statement
with an unhandled case leading to a gcc_unreachable () with suitable input.
PR fortran/119118
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* dependency.cc (contains_forall_index_p): Let loop over elements
of a constructor update its control variable. Handle REF_INQUIRY
in switch statement.
(gfc_contains_implied_index_p): Likewise.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_26.f90: Update test.
---
gcc/fortran/dependency.cc | 6 ++++--
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_26.f90 | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc
index 28b872f6638..57c0c49391b 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/dependency.cc
@@ -1853,7 +1853,7 @@ contains_forall_index_p (gfc_expr *expr)
case EXPR_STRUCTURE:
case EXPR_ARRAY:
for (c = gfc_constructor_first (expr->value.constructor);
- c; gfc_constructor_next (c))
+ c; c = gfc_constructor_next (c))
if (contains_forall_index_p (c->expr))
return true;
break;
@@ -1874,6 +1874,7 @@ contains_forall_index_p (gfc_expr *expr)
break;
case REF_COMPONENT:
+ case REF_INQUIRY:
break;
case REF_SUBSTRING:
@@ -1933,7 +1934,7 @@ gfc_contains_implied_index_p (gfc_expr *expr)
case EXPR_STRUCTURE:
case EXPR_ARRAY:
for (c = gfc_constructor_first (expr->value.constructor);
- c; gfc_constructor_next (c))
+ c; c = gfc_constructor_next (c))
if (gfc_contains_implied_index_p (c->expr))
return true;
break;
@@ -1954,6 +1955,7 @@ gfc_contains_implied_index_p (gfc_expr *expr)
break;
case REF_COMPONENT:
+ case REF_INQUIRY:
break;
case REF_SUBSTRING:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_26.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_26.f90
index 69ac9fbe2f2..ddfcbd07f3c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_26.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bounds_check_26.f90
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ program main
print *, str(-n:11) ! 2 checked bounds
print *, len (str(-n:11)) ! 2 checked bounds
+ print *, str(-n*n%kind:sum(n-[0,n%kind])) ! 2 checked bounds
+
end program main
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Substring out of bounds:" 10 "original" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Substring out of bounds:" 12 "original" } }
--
2.43.0
