Hi Janus, yes, that was what I had in mind for the testcase. Now it looks ok to me.
- Andre On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:41:23 +0100 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > Hi Andre, > > > so when I interpret the testcase correctly, than the finalizer should not be > > called, right? So adding a call abort() in the Finalize and allocating and > > deallocating M in the main program should do no harm, but make the testcase > > IMO more feasible. What do you think? > > thanks for the comment. Indeed it can not hurt to extend it into a > runtime test. New version attached (according to your suggestions). Ok > with this? > > Cheers, > Janus > > > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:56:29 +0100 > > Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> the attached patch fixes an ice-on-valid problem with finalization. > >> The ICE turned out to be caused by a bug in 'has_finalizer_component': > >> According to the documentation, this function is supposed to detect > >> whether a derived type has any nonpointer nonallocatable components > >> that have a finalizer. However it triggered also on pointer components > >> with a finalizer. Fixing this makes the ICE go away. > >> > >> The patch regtests cleanly on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Janus > >> > >> > >> 2016-12-08 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> > >> > >> PR fortran/61767 > >> * class.c (has_finalizer_component): Fix this function to detect only > >> non-pointer non-allocatable components which have a finalizer. > >> > >> 2016-12-08 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> > >> > >> PR fortran/61767 > >> * gfortran.dg/finalize_31.f90: New test. > > > > > > -- > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de -- Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
