Dear all,
the previous fix for pr103505 introduced a regression that could lead
to wrong array bounds when LBOUND/UBOUND were used in the array spec
of a declaration. The reason was that we tried to simplify too early
the array element spec, which appears to have interfered with the
subtle semantics of the bound intrinsics.
The solution is to undo the fix for pr103505. It turns out that
there are other code changes in place that were put in place to
fix related ICEs, and which handle that one, too, and only lead
to a change of the emitted error diagnostics.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
As this is a 10/11/12/13 regression, I would like to backport
as seems fit.
Thanks,
Harald
From 531be0753352ec30c4b1e24591ec3e0c33cd4409 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 22:04:32 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: incorrect array bounds when bound intrinsic used in
decl [PR108131]
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/108131
* array.cc (match_array_element_spec): Avoid too early simplification
of matched array element specs that can lead to a misinterpretation
when used as array bounds in array declarations.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/108131
* gfortran.dg/pr103505.f90: Adjust expected patterns.
* gfortran.dg/pr108131.f90: New test.
---
gcc/fortran/array.cc | 4
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103505.f90 | 8 +---
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr108131.f90 | 25 +
3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr108131.f90
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.cc b/gcc/fortran/array.cc
index 10d9e0c5354..7457c03e6cd 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/array.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/array.cc
@@ -512,8 +512,6 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec *as)
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- gfc_try_simplify_expr (*upper, 0);
-
if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
&& (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
@@ -546,8 +544,6 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec *as)
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- gfc_try_simplify_expr (*upper, 0);
-
if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
&& (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103505.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103505.f90
index 522e53efcb2..01308019b2c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103505.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103505.f90
@@ -3,7 +3,9 @@
! Testcase by G.Steinmetz
program p
- integer, parameter :: a((2.)) = [4,8] ! { dg-error "scalar INTEGER" }
- integer, parameter :: z(1:(2.)) = [4,8] ! { dg-error "scalar INTEGER" }
- print *, a(1:1) ! { dg-error "Syntax error" }
+ integer, parameter :: a((2.)) = [4,8] ! { dg-error "INTEGER type" }
+ integer, parameter :: z(1:(2.)) = [4,8] ! { dg-error "INTEGER type" }
+ print *, a(1:1)
end
+
+! { dg-prune-output "Parameter array" }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr108131.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr108131.f90
new file mode 100644
index 000..4a3c467f73a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr108131.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
+! PR fortran/108131
+!
+! Incorrect array bounds when bound intrinsic used in declaration
+
+program test
+ implicit none
+ integer, parameter :: mg(7:10) = 0
+ integer, parameter :: u = ubound(mg, dim=1)
+ integer, parameter :: cx(-1:ubound(mg, dim=1)) = 1
+ integer, parameter :: dx(lbound(mg, dim=1):ubound(mg, dim=1)) = 2
+
+ write(*,*) ubound(mg, dim=1)
+ write(*,*) ubound(cx, dim=1)
+ if (u /= 10) stop 1
+ if (ubound(mg, dim=1) /= 10) stop 2
+ if (ubound(cx, dim=1) /= 10) stop 3
+ if (ubound(dx, dim=1) /= 10) stop 4
+ if (lbound(mg, dim=1) /= 7) stop 5
+ if (lbound(cx, dim=1) /= -1) stop 6
+ if (lbound(dx, dim=1) /= 7) stop 7
+end program test
+
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "_gfortran_stop_numeric" "original" } }
--
2.35.3
