------- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-22 08:57 -------
In order to avoid the error reported in comment #8, I have tested the following
patches:
(1)
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c 2009-08-21 17:41:19.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c 2009-08-21 19:20:16.000000000 +0200
@@ -2679,6 +2679,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gf
}
else if (e->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
&& e->symtree->n.sym->result
+ && e->symtree->n.sym->result != e->symtree->n.sym
&& e->symtree->n.sym->result->attr.proc_pointer)
{
/* Functions returning procedure pointers. */
@@ -3504,7 +3505,7 @@ gfc_conv_statement_function (gfc_se * se
/* Return the backend_decl for a procedure pointer component. */
tree
-gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *e)
+gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (__attribute__((unused)) gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *e)
{
gfc_se comp_se;
gfc_expr *e2;
@@ -3512,8 +3513,7 @@ gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_e
e2 = gfc_copy_expr (e);
e2->expr_type = EXPR_VARIABLE;
gfc_conv_expr (&comp_se, e2);
- comp_se.expr = build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
- return gfc_evaluate_now (comp_se.expr, &se->pre);
+ return build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
}
(2)
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c 2009-08-21 11:46:44.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c 2009-08-21 21:38:04.000000000 +0200
@@ -1508,7 +1508,7 @@ conv_function_val (gfc_se * se, gfc_symb
tree tmp;
if (gfc_is_proc_ptr_comp (expr, NULL))
- tmp = gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (se, expr);
+ tmp = gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (expr);
else if (sym->attr.dummy)
{
tmp = gfc_get_symbol_decl (sym);
@@ -2679,6 +2679,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gf
}
else if (e->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
&& e->symtree->n.sym->result
+ && e->symtree->n.sym->result != e->symtree->n.sym
&& e->symtree->n.sym->result->attr.proc_pointer)
{
/* Functions returning procedure pointers. */
@@ -3504,7 +3505,7 @@ gfc_conv_statement_function (gfc_se * se
/* Return the backend_decl for a procedure pointer component. */
tree
-gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *e)
+gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_expr *e)
{
gfc_se comp_se;
gfc_expr *e2;
@@ -3512,8 +3513,7 @@ gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *se, gfc_e
e2 = gfc_copy_expr (e);
e2->expr_type = EXPR_VARIABLE;
gfc_conv_expr (&comp_se, e2);
- comp_se.expr = build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
- return gfc_evaluate_now (comp_se.expr, &se->pre);
+ return build_fold_addr_expr_loc (input_location, comp_se.expr);
}
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-tmt.h
===================================================================
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h 2009-05-10 12:01:34.000000000
+0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.h 2009-08-21 21:38:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ tree gfc_trans_code (gfc_code *);
tree gfc_trans_assign (gfc_code *);
tree gfc_trans_pointer_assign (gfc_code *);
tree gfc_trans_init_assign (gfc_code *);
-tree gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_se *, gfc_expr *);
+tree gfc_get_proc_ptr_comp (gfc_expr *);
/* trans-stmt.c */
tree gfc_trans_cycle (gfc_code *);
Both allow gfortran to be built, they fix the segmentation fault reported in
comment #2, but not the wrong code for comments #4 and #11. With the second
patch, my tests passed and gfortran regtested fine (powerpc-apple-darwin9).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139
