Dear Paul,
Apparently you have forgotten to commit the update for
same_type_as_1.f03.
Dominique
Dear All,
Committed as revision 194622 and corrigendum 194626 (removes one test
from unlimited_polymorphic_2.f03).
Thanks to one and all for the help.
Paul
On 19 December 2012 07:17, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
> Thanks Tobias and Dominique,
>
> I'll make the corrections that you have request
Thanks Tobias and Dominique,
I'll make the corrections that you have requested. I believe that the
2*(GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN+1) has a historic origin - I had not thought
about it until last night, when you pointed it out.
As for the segfault - that line should go. The automatic nulling of
the _vptr
Dear Paul,
With your patch applied on top of a clean revision 194590, the executable
for unlimited_polymorphic_1.f03 gives a Segmentation fault -
invalid memory reference at
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00011d1c in MAIN__ () at
/opt/gcc/p_work/gcc/testsuite/gfo
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Please find attached an updated version of the patch, which I believe
answers your comments/objections.
Thanks for the patch. They patch is OK from my side, if you address the
issues below.
+ /* Assign a hash value for an intrinsic type. The algorithm is that of S
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
The problem is with the way in which extends_type_of is organised. It
takes the _vptr directly. Unless it is null for undefined pointers, a
segfault is triggered.
So what? If I have:
integer, pointer :: ptr
ptr = 5
will also lead to a segfault (or a bus error);
Hi Tobias,
The problem is with the way in which extends_type_of is organised. It
takes the _vptr directly. Unless it is null for undefined pointers, a
segfault is triggered. I guess that I could achieve the same thing
with the default initialization.
Initialization of class(*) pointers appears
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
+ /* Unlimited polymorphic pointers should have their vptr nullified. */
>+ if (UNLIMITED_POLY (sym) && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.pointer)
>+gfc_defer_symbol_init (sym);
>
>
>Why? If the pointer has never been pointer-associated, one shouldn't access
It's so that S
Dear Tobias,
Up front, thanks for this initial feedback. Dominique informed me on
#gfortran that "the patch works as advertised".
...snip...
> Running your test cases through crayftn, I found:
>
> if (SAME_TYPE_AS (obj1, u1) .neqv. .FALSE.) call abort
> ^
> ftn-1698 c
Thanks for the patch, here is a first but incomplete review. I think the
patch looks mostly okay.
Running your test cases through crayftn, I found:
if (SAME_TYPE_AS (obj1, u1) .neqv. .FALSE.) call abort
^
ftn-1698 crayftn: ERROR $MAIN, File = unlimited_polymorphic_1
10 matches
Mail list logo
