[Bug fortran/29537] ICE in gfc_match_common for blank common in BLOCK DATA unit

["aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #9 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-10-26 12:59 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=12476)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12476&action=view) [edit]
> untested proposed fix
> 
> I hope to test this patch soon.

bootstrapped and regtested with no additional regression on i686-linux-gnu.
> 
> Note that it adds a warning about blank common in block data but -- unlike the
> patch in the previous comment -- does accept the common instead of abandoning
> it via goto cleanup. Please advise if not cleaning this up is acceptable or if
> blank commons should be ignored there.

The symbol needs to be retained, AFAIU.
With the proposed patch, we have:
$ nm blockdata_2.o
00000004 C __BLNK__
00000000 B __BLOCK_DATA__
         U _gfortran_set_std
00000000 T MAIN__

> 
> fortran/ChangeLog:
> 2006-10-22  Bernhard Fischer  <aldot@gcc.gnu.org>
> 
>         PR fortran/29537
>        * trans-common.c (gfc_trans_common): For unnamed block data the
>        proc_name is null, so use the locus of the common.
>        (gfc_sym_mangled_common_id): Fix whitespace.
>         * match.c (gfc_match_common): Emit warning about blank common in
>         block data.

Rephrasing to
        * trans-common.c (gfc_trans_common): If the blank common is 
        in a procedure or program without a name then proc_name is null, so use
        the locus of the common.

> testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 2006-10-22  Bernhard Fischer  <aldot@gcc.gnu.org>
> 
>         PR fortran/29537
>         * blockdata_1.f90: Add warning about blank common in block data.
>         * blockdata_2.f90: New testcase.
> 


-- 

aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29537