Re: [Patch, fortran] PR109066 - Segfault when using defined assignment
Hi Thomas, This has to be the shortest interval between submission and pushing of a patch that I have experienced! Pushed to mainline as r15-5347... Thanks for the review! Paul On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 at 15:46, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > This is a particularly straightforward, going on 'obvious', patch. The > > bug goes back to at least gcc-6.4.1. > > > > OK for mainline and, after a week or two, to 13- and 14-branches? > > As you say, this one is straightforward. > > OK for trunk and as far back as you care to backport. > > Thanks for the patch! > > Best regards > > Thomas > > >
[patch, fortran, doc, committed] Mention that SELECT CASE works for unsigned
Hello world,
I just committed the attached documentatin patch as obvious,
in r15-5344-gbf00f117eb4b5527592029e39a3d79f2048745d8 .
Best regards
Thomas
Document that SELECT CASE works for unsigned.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* gfortran.texi: Document that SELECT CASE works for UNSIGNED.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
index a6617aa1571..c91d548fc55 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
+++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi
@@ -2773,6 +2773,8 @@ formatted and unformatted I/O. For formatted I/O,
the @code{B},
values and values which would overflow are rejected with
@code{-pedantic}.
+@code{SELECT CASE} is supported for unsigned integers.
+
The following intrinsics take unsigned arguments:
@itemize @bullet
@item @code{BGE}, @pxref{BGE}
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR109066 - Segfault when using defined assignment
Hi Paul, This is a particularly straightforward, going on 'obvious', patch. The bug goes back to at least gcc-6.4.1. OK for mainline and, after a week or two, to 13- and 14-branches? As you say, this one is straightforward. OK for trunk and as far back as you care to backport. Thanks for the patch! Best regards Thomas
Re: [patch, Fortran, committed] Handle unsigned constants in modules
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 02:55:11PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Steve found a test case where unsigned constants were not handled > in a module. Single-line patch committed as obvious and simple, > r15-5341-g66096151afc6631f8f2a3458b154c5daa822b963 . > > Best regards > > Thomas > Thanks for the patch. -- Steve
[patch, Fortran, committed] Handle unsigned constants in modules
Hello world,
Steve found a test case where unsigned constants were not handled
in a module. Single-line patch committed as obvious and simple,
r15-5341-g66096151afc6631f8f2a3458b154c5daa822b963 .
Best regards
Thomas
Handle unsigned constants for module I/O.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* module.cc (mio_expr): Handle BT_UNSIGNED.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gfortran.dg/unsigned_42.f90: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/module.cc b/gcc/fortran/module.cc
index 9ab4d2bf1ea..d184dbc661f 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/module.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/module.cc
@@ -3925,6 +3925,7 @@ mio_expr (gfc_expr **ep)
switch (e->ts.type)
{
case BT_INTEGER:
+ case BT_UNSIGNED:
mio_gmp_integer (&e->value.integer);
break;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/unsigned_42.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/unsigned_42.f90
new file mode 100644
index 000..e9a723863c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/unsigned_42.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+! { dg-do compile }
+! { dg-options "-funsigned" }
+module mytype
+ integer, parameter :: uk = selected_unsigned_kind(12)
+end module mytype
+
+module foo
+ use mytype
+ implicit none
+ unsigned(uk), parameter :: seed0 = 1u_uk
+ unsigned(uk), protected :: x_ = seed0
+end module foo
[Patch, fortran] PR109066 - Segfault when using defined assignment
Hi All,
This is a particularly straightforward, going on 'obvious', patch. The bug
goes back to at least gcc-6.4.1.
OK for mainline and, after a week or two, to 13- and 14-branches?
Regards
Paul
Change.Logs
Description: Binary data
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
index b8c908b51e9..e8f780d1ef9 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
@@ -12404,6 +12404,11 @@ generate_component_assignments (gfc_code **code, gfc_namespace *ns)
{
/* Assign the rhs to the temporary. */
tmp_expr = get_temp_from_expr ((*code)->expr1, ns);
+ if (tmp_expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.pointer)
+ {
+ tmp_expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.pointer = 0;
+ tmp_expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.allocatable = 1;
+ }
this_code = build_assignment (EXEC_ASSIGN,
tmp_expr, (*code)->expr2,
NULL, NULL, (*code)->loc);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/defined_assignment_12.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/defined_assignment_12.f90
new file mode 100644
index 000..57445abe25c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/defined_assignment_12.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+! { dg-do run }
+!
+! Test fix of PR109066, which caused segfaults as below
+!
+! Contributed by Andrew Benson
+!
+module bugMod
+
+ type :: rm
+ integer :: c=0
+ contains
+ procedure :: rma
+ generic :: assignment(=) => rma
+ end type rm
+
+ type :: lc
+ type(rm) :: lm
+ end type lc
+
+contains
+
+ impure elemental subroutine rma(to,from)
+implicit none
+class(rm), intent(out) :: to
+class(rm), intent(in) :: from
+to%c = -from%c
+return
+ end subroutine rma
+
+end module bugMod
+
+program bug
+ use bugMod
+ implicit none
+ type(lc), pointer :: i, j(:)
+
+ allocate (i)
+ i = lc (rm (1)) ! Segmentation fault
+ if (i%lm%c .ne. -1) stop 1
+ i = i_ptr () ! Segmentation fault
+ if (i%lm%c .ne. 1) stop 2
+
+ allocate (j(2))
+ j = [lc (rm (2)), lc (rm (3))] ! Segmentation fault
+ if (any (j%lm%c .ne. [-2,-3])) stop 3
+ j = j_ptr () ! Worked!
+ if (any (j%lm%c .ne. [2,3])) stop 4
+
+contains
+
+ function i_ptr () result(res)
+type(lc), pointer :: res
+res => i
+ end function
+
+ function j_ptr () result(res)
+type(lc), pointer :: res (:)
+res => j
+ end function
+
+end program bug
