------- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 07:31
-------
For the TRANSPOSE case, the generated code shows that the {u,l}bounds simply
aren't set right:
$ cat pr29391.f90
integer :: i(-1:1,-1:1)=0, j(2)
j = lbound(transpose(i))
end
$ cat pr29391.f90.003t.original
MAIN__ ()
{
int4 j[2];
static int4 i[9] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0};
_gfortran_set_std (70, 127, 0);
{
int8 S.0;
S.0 = 1;
while (1)
{
if (S.0 > 2) goto L.1; else (void) 0;
{
struct array2_int4 atmp.2;
struct array2_int4 parm.1;
parm.1.dtype = 266;
parm.1.dim[0].lbound = -1;
parm.1.dim[0].ubound = 1;
parm.1.dim[0].stride = 1;
parm.1.dim[1].lbound = -1;
parm.1.dim[1].ubound = 1;
parm.1.dim[1].stride = 3;
parm.1.data = (void *) &i[0];
parm.1.offset = 0;
atmp.2.dtype = parm.1.dtype;
atmp.2.dim[0].stride = parm.1.dim[1].stride;
atmp.2.dim[0].lbound = parm.1.dim[1].lbound;
atmp.2.dim[0].ubound = parm.1.dim[1].ubound;
atmp.2.dim[1].stride = parm.1.dim[0].stride;
atmp.2.dim[1].lbound = parm.1.dim[0].lbound;
atmp.2.dim[1].ubound = parm.1.dim[0].ubound;
atmp.2.data = parm.1.data;
atmp.2.offset = parm.1.offset;
j[NON_LVALUE_EXPR <S.0> + -1] = (int4) atmp.2.dim[S.0 - 1].lbound;
}
S.0 = S.0 + 1;
}
L.1:;
}
}
The following patch ought to fix it:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (revision 117560)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-array.c (working copy)
@@ -787,11 +787,17 @@
gfc_add_modify_expr (&se->pre,
gfc_conv_descriptor_lbound (dest, dest_index),
- gfc_conv_descriptor_lbound (src, src_index));
+ gfc_index_one_node);
gfc_add_modify_expr (&se->pre,
gfc_conv_descriptor_ubound (dest, dest_index),
- gfc_conv_descriptor_ubound (src, src_index));
+ build2 (PLUS_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type,
+ gfc_index_one_node,
+ build2 (MINUS_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type,
+ gfc_conv_descriptor_ubound
+ (src, src_index),
+ gfc_conv_descriptor_lbound
+ (src, src_index))));
if (!loop->to[n])
{
One last comment: I'm not sure the stride shouldn't be set to one. The patch
above regtests fine, and can compile correctly everything I threw at it, but
maybe I have not been clever enough to think of something that would trigger a
check on the stride.
Paul, could I have your opinion on the patch and the stride question? After you
comment, I'll go on designing patches for the other functions.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot
| |fr
Known to fail| |4.2.0 4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29391
