This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 57306: ICE on valid with class pointer initialization

Hi Tobias,

> Sorry, I currently have only a shaky internet connection and also no access
> to my development system.

sounds like holidays :)

> Looking at gfc_class_initializer, I have the impression that it does not
> handle initialization of unlimited polymorphic variables/components. I don't
> know whether initialization is permitted, but my feeling is that the
> following should work:
> type t
>   class(*), pointer :: x
> end type t
> type(t), target :: y
> integer,target :: z
> type(t) :: x = t(y)
> type(t) :: x = t(z)
> class(*), pointer :: a => y
> And I have the feeling that it is not correctly treated - but I might be
> wrong. (Note to the example above: I believe "t(y)" is a valid structure
> constructor, which is not yet supported. But again, I might be wrong about
> either.)

Your example yields (with and without the current patch):


type(t) :: x = t(y)
Error: Can't convert TYPE(t) to CLASS(*) at (1)

type(t) :: x = t(z)
Error: Can't convert INTEGER(4) to CLASS(*) at (1)

In fact the patch does not really handle unlimited polymorphics. I
suspect several fixes might be needed to get your test case running.
Is it ok to do this in a follow-up patch?

> Regarding the example: Does it now work when the target and the pointer are
> in the same scoping unit? Or does one still need to place the targets into
> the module?

Well, they will work as soon as PR 55207 is fixed (there is a working
patch already, which hopefully can be committed soon).

>>> No failures observed. As a test case I'm using now Tobias' extended
>>> version (attached). New ChangeLog below.
> Well, the test case does not check whether it works. You either need to
> check the dump - or you need to use dg-do run.

Good point. The intention was to use dg-do run, of course.

Anyway, thanks for the review. Is it ok to commit the patch as is and
defer the treatment of unlimited polymorphics into a follow-up patch?


>>> 2013-07-30  Janus Weil  <>
>>>      PR fortran/57306
>>>      * class.c (gfc_class_null_initializer): Rename to
>>>      'gfc_class_initializer'. Treat non-NULL init-exprs.
>>>      * gfortran.h (gfc_class_null_initializer): Update prototype.
>>>      * trans-decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl): Treat class pointers.
>>>      * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_initializer): Ditto.
>>>      (gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign): Renamed gfc_class_null_initializer.
>>> 2013-07-30  Janus Weil  <>
>>>      PR fortran/57306
>>>      * gfortran.dg/pointer_init_8.f90: New.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]