Hi Tobias,
I can only echo Harald's comment that this is an impressive bit of work.
I spent some time messing with fc-descriptor-7.f90/gc-descriptor-7-c.cc
because it kept failing on me. This came about because I missed one of the
chunks not applying in the C component of the test; namely:
for (int j = 0; j < 5; ++j)
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
subscripts[0] = j; subscripts[1] = i;
if (*(int *) CFI_address (a, subscripts) != (i+1) + 100*(j+1))
abort ();
}
This set me to wondering whether or not the user should be aware that the
result of the transpose intrinsic being passed in this way should not
generate a warning that the CFI API must be used in this case and not to
depend on the data being transposed?
Apart from this I have no other comments, still less corrections :-)
Many thanks for the patch - OK for mainline.
Paul
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 21:11, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Am 13.10.21 um 18:01 schrieb Tobias Burnus:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > a minor update [→ v3].
>
> this has become an impressive work.
>
> > I searched for XFAIL in Sandra's c-interop/ and found
> > two remaining true** xfails, now fixed:
> >
> > - gfortran.dg/c-interop/typecodes-scalar-basic.f90
> >The conversion of scalars of type(c_ptr) was mishandled;
> >fixed now; the fix did run into issues converting a string_cst,
> >which has also been fixed.
> >
> > - gfortran.dg/c-interop/fc-descriptor-7.f90
> >this one uses TRANSPOSE which did not work [now mostly* does]
> >→ PR fortran/101309 now also fixed.
> >
> > I forgot what the exact issue for the latter was. However, when
> > looking at the testcase and extending it, I did run into the
> > following issue - and at the end the testcase does now pass.
> > The issue I had was that when a contiguous check was requested
> > (i.e. only copy in when needed) it failed to work, when
> > parmse->expr was (a pointer to) a descriptor. I fixed that and
> > now most* things work.
> >
> > OK for mainline? Comments? Suggestions? More PRs which fixes
> > this patch? Regressions? Test results?
>
> Doesn't break my own codes so far.
>
> If nobody else responds within the next days, assume an OK
> from my side.
>
> This will also provide Gerhard with a new playground. ;-)
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> Harald
>
> > Tobias
> >
> > PS: I intent to commit this patch to the OG11 (devel/omp/gcc-11)
> > branch, in case someone wants to test it there.
> >
> > PPS: Nice to have an extensive testcase suite - kudos to Sandra
> > in this case. I am sure Gerald will find more issues and once
> > it is in, I think I/we have to check some PRs + José's patches
> > whether for additional testcases + follow-up fixes.
> >
> > (*) I write most as passing a (potentially) noncontiguous
> > assumed-rank array to a CONTIGUOUS assumed-rank array causes
> > an ICE as the scalarizer does not handle dynamic ranks alias
> > expr->rank == -1 / ss->dimen = -1.
> > I decided that that's a separate issue and filled:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102729
> > BTW, my impression is that fixing that PR might fix will solve
> > the trans*.c part of https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102641 - but I have
> > not investigated.
> >
> > (**) There are still some 'xfail' in comments (outside dg-*)
> > whose tests now pass. And those where for two bugs in the same
> > statement, only one is reported - and the other only after fixing
> > the first one, which is fine.
> >
> > On 09.10.21 23:48, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> attached is the updated version. Changes:
> >> * Handle noncontiguous arrays – with BIND(C), (g)Fortran needs to make
> it
> >> contiguous in the caller but also handle noncontiguous in the callee.
> >> * Fixes/handle 'character(len=*)' with BIND(C); those always use an
> >> array descriptor - also with explicit-size and assumed-size arrays
> >> * Fixed a bunch of bugs, found when writing extensive testcases.
> >> * Fixed type(*) handling - those now pass properly type and elem_len
> >> on when calling a new function (bind(C) or not).
> >>
> >> Besides adding the type itself (which is rather straight forward),
> >> this patch only had minor modifications – and then the two big
> >> conversion functions.
> >>
> >> While it looks intimidating, it should be comparably simple to
> >> review as everything is on one place and hopefully sufficiently
> >> well documented.
> >>
> >> OK – for mainline? Other comments? More PRs which are fixed?
> >> Issues not yet fixed (which are inside the scope of this patch)?
> >>
> >> (If this patch is too long, I also have a nine-day old pending patch
> >> at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-October/580624.html )
> >>
> >> Tobias
> >>
> >> PS: The following still applies.
> >>
> >> On 06.09.21 12:52, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >>> gfortran's internal array descriptor (xgfc descriptor) and
> >>> the descriptor used with BIND(C) (CFI descriptor, ISO_Fortran_binding.h
> >>> of TS29113 / Fortran 2018) are
