Re: [PATCH, v2] Fortran: fix for absent array argument passed to optional dummy [PR101135]

Hi Mikael, On 3/17/24 22:04, Mikael Morin wrote: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc index 3673fa40720..a7717a8107e 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc @@ -7526,6 +7526,17 @@ gfc_get_dataptr_offset (stmtblock_t *block, tree pa

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fortran: Fix specification expression error with dummy procedures [PR111781]

Le 17/03/2024 à 21:57, Harald Anlauf a écrit : Hi Mikael, thanks for the patch! Regarding the first part of the patch, I think that fixing bad testcases can be done at any time.  Retaining identified, broken testcases means that one may hit bogus regressions, hindering progress. The second par

Re: [PATCH, v2] Fortran: fix for absent array argument passed to optional dummy [PR101135]

Le 15/03/2024 à 20:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit : Dear all, as there has been some good progress in the handling of optional dummy arguments, I looked again at this PR and a patch for it that I withdrew as it turned out incomplete. It turned out that it now needs only a minor adjustment for option

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fortran: Fix specification expression error with dummy procedures [PR111781]

Hi Mikael, thanks for the patch! Regarding the first part of the patch, I think that fixing bad testcases can be done at any time. Retaining identified, broken testcases means that one may hit bogus regressions, hindering progress. The second part of the patch looks at first glance fine to me.

[PATCH v2 2/2] fortran: Fix specification expression error with dummy procedures [PR111781]

This fixes a spurious invalid variable in specification expression error. The problem is caused by improper restoration of formal_arg_flag to false (instead of restoring it to its previous value). This happens with the testcase from the PR where a dummy argument is itself a procedure with dummy ar

[PATCH v2 0/2] fortran: Fix specification checks [PR111781]

Meh, the first version contained out-of-date patches. these patches correct diagnostics dealing with variables in specification expressions. The first patch is a testsuite change, which fixes invalid specification expressions that the second patch would diagnose. The second patch removes a spuriou

[PATCH v2 1/2] testsuite: Declare fortran array bound variables

This fixes invalid undeclared fortran array bound variables in the testsuite. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90: Declare array bound variable(s) as dummy argument(s). * gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90: Likew

[PATCH 0/2] fortran: Fix specification checks [PR111781]

Hello, these patches correct diagnostics dealing with variables in specification expressions. The first patch is a testsuite change, which fixes invalid specification expressions that the second patch would diagnose. The second patch removes a spurious diagnostic when a dummy procedure is involved

[PATCH 2/2] fortran: Fix specification expression error with dummy procedures [PR111781]

This fixes a spurious invalid variable in specification expression error. The problem is caused by improper restoration of formal_arg_flag to false (instead of restoring it to its previous value). This happens with the testcase from the PR where a dummy argument is itself a procedure with dummy ar

[PATCH 1/2] testsuite: Declare fortran array bound variables

This fixes invalid undeclared fortran array bound variables in the testsuite. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90: Declare array bound variable(s) as dummy argument(s). * gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90: Likew