On 5/9/23 20:29, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 5/9/23 17:51, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi All,
Thanks to Steve Kargl for the fix. It caused finalize_8.f03 to fail because
this testcase checked that finalizable derived types could not be specified
in a submodule. I have replaced the original test with a test of the patch.
Thanks also to Malcolm Cohen for guidance on this.
OK for trunk?
the patch looks good to me. However:
@@ -11637,8 +11637,9 @@ gfc_match_final_decl (void)
block = gfc_state_stack->previous->sym;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See below.
gcc_assert (block);
- if (!gfc_state_stack->previous || !gfc_state_stack->previous->previous
- || gfc_state_stack->previous->previous->state != COMP_MODULE)
+ if (gfc_state_stack->previous->previous
+ && gfc_state_stack->previous->previous->state != COMP_MODULE
+ && gfc_state_stack->previous->previous->state != COMP_SUBMODULE)
{
gfc_error ("Derived type declaration with FINAL at %C must be in
the"
" specification part of a MODULE");
I am wondering if we should keep the protection against a potential
NULL pointer dereference (i.e. gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL) for
possibly invalid code. I have failed to produce a simple testcase,
but others may have "better" ideas.
It's not needed. See above. gfc_state_stack->previous is referenced
a few lines above the if-stmt. The reference will segfault if the
pointer is NULL.
You're absolutely right. So it is OK as is.
