Hi Sandro,
As far as I can see, this is OK barring a couple of minor wrinkles and
a question:
For coarray_failed_images_err.f90 and coarray_image_status_err.f90 you
have used the option -fdump-tree-original without making use of the
tree dump.
Mikael asked you to provide an executable test with -fcoarray=single.
Is this not possible for some reason?
Otherwise, this is OK for trunk.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On 4 August 2016 at 05:07, Alessandro Fanfarillo
<fanfarillo....@gmail.com> wrote:
> * PING *
>
> 2016-07-21 13:05 GMT-06:00 Alessandro Fanfarillo <fanfarillo....@gmail.com>:
>> Dear Mikael and all,
>>
>> in attachment the new patch, built and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alessandro
>>
>> 2016-07-20 13:17 GMT-06:00 Mikael Morin <morin-mik...@orange.fr>:
>>> Le 20/07/2016 à 11:39, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mikael,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> + if(st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE)
>>>>>> + new_st.op = EXEC_FAIL_IMAGE;
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + gcc_unreachable();
>>>>>
>>>>> You can use
>>>>> gcc_assert (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE);
>>>>> foo...;
>>>>> instead of
>>>>> if (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE)
>>>>> foo...;
>>>>> else
>>>>> gcc_unreachable ();
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Be careful, this is not 100% identical in the general case. For older
>>>> gcc version (gcc < 4008) gcc_assert() is mapped to nothing, esp. not to
>>>> an abort(), so the behavior can change. But in this case everything is
>>>> fine, because the patch is most likely not backported.
>>>>
>>> Didn't know about this. The difference seems to be very subtle.
>>> I don't mind much anyway. The original version can stay if preferred, this
>>> was just a suggestion.
>>>
>>> By the way, if the function is inlined in its single caller, the assert or
>>> unreachable statement can be removed, which avoids choosing between them.
>>> That's another suggestion.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return MATCH_YES;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + syntax:
>>>>>> + gfc_syntax_error (st);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return MATCH_ERROR;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +match
>>>>>> +gfc_match_fail_image (void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + /* if (!gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2008_TS, "FAIL IMAGE statement
>>>>>> at %C")) */
>>>>>> + /* return MATCH_ERROR; */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Can this be uncommented?
>>>>>
>>>>>> + return fail_image_statement (ST_FAIL_IMAGE);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Match LOCK/UNLOCK statement. Syntax:
>>>>>> LOCK ( lock-variable [ , lock-stat-list ] )
>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
>>>>>> b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c index 1aaf4e2..b2f5596 100644
>>>>>> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
>>>>>> @@ -1647,6 +1647,24 @@ trans_this_image (gfc_se * se, gfc_expr
>>>>>> *expr) m, lbound));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static void
>>>>>> +gfc_conv_intrinsic_image_status (gfc_se *se, gfc_expr *expr)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + unsigned int num_args;
>>>>>> + tree *args,tmp;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + num_args = gfc_intrinsic_argument_list_length (expr);
>>>>>> + args = XALLOCAVEC (tree, num_args);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + gfc_conv_intrinsic_function_args (se, expr, args, num_args);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (flag_coarray == GFC_FCOARRAY_LIB)
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>
>>>>> Can everything be put under the if?
>>>>> Does it work with -fcoarray=single?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMO coarray=single should not generate code here, therefore putting
>>>> everything under the if should to fine.
>>>>
>>> My point was more avoiding generating code for the arguments if they are not
>>> used in the end.
>>> Regarding the -fcoarray=single case, the function returns a result, which
>>> can be used in an expression, so I don't think it will work without at least
>>> hardcoding a fixed value as result in that case.
>>> But even that wouldn't be enough, as the function wouldn't work consistently
>>> with the fail image statement.
>>>
>>>> Sorry for the comments ...
>>>>
>>> Comments are welcome here, as far as I know. ;-)
>>>
>>> Mikael
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.
Albert Einstein
