Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 57022: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inappropriate warning for use of TRANSFER with arrays

[Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

2013/4/22 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>:
> Am 22.04.2013 20:00, schrieb Janus Weil:
>>>
>>> >Side remark and just for completeness, there is also rank == -1 for
>>> >assumed-rank arrays. However, as TRANSFER is not an inquiry function, it
>>> >shouldn't reach that code. (Maybe you could quickly check that that's
>>> > indeed
>>> >the case.)
>>
>> well, I guess you*can*  actually reach that code with assumed-rank
>>
>> arrays, e.g. via
>>
>> subroutine assumed_rank (a)
>>    integer, intent(in) :: a(..)
>>    integer :: c(1:4)
>>    c = transfer(a,c,4)
>> end subroutine
>>
>> So, good point! The code part quoted above has been removed in the
>> last revision, but I have updated gfc_target_expr_size to check for
>> "(e->rank)" now (i.e. without the "> 0"), and I have also added the
>> above test case (which indeed showed the false warning with the last
>> version of the patch, but not any more).
>
>
> Checking for "rank" instead of "rank >0" is fine - but I wouldn't add the
> test case as it is invalid

ok, committed as r198155.

Will backport to 4.8 and 4.7 in about a week or so ...


> and gfortran should reject the code according
> to the following TS29113 constraint:
>
> "C535b An assumed-rank variable name shall not appear in a designator or
> expression except as an actual argument corresponding to a dummy argument
> that is assumed-rank, the argument of the C_LOC function in the
> ISO_C_BINDING intrinsic module, or the first argument in a reference to an
> intrinsic inquiry function."
>
> Seemingly, the constraint code is not correctly checked for intrinsics as
> TRANSFER is a transformational function.
>
> I wonder whether TYPE(*) and !GCC$ attributes no_arg_check have the same
> problems as similar constraints exist for those.
>
> I have now filled: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57035

Ok, thanks!

Cheers,
Janus