This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR65792 unitialized structure constructor array subcomponent
- From: Dominique d'HumiÃres <dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr>
- To: mikael dot morin at sfr dot fr
- Cc: Andre Vehreschild <vehre at gmx dot de>, Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>, GNU GFortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:58:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR65792 unitialized structure constructor array subcomponent
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <B9908AC3-EBF5-452D-BE01-70AEF0B97080 at lps dot ens dot fr>
I have retested a clean tree with only the patches for pr 65792 [first patch] and Andreâs one for pr59678: i.e., without any patch from pr61831, and I still see the conflict between the two patches.
Dominique
> Le 19 avr. 2015 Ã 10:39, Dominique d'HumiÃres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> a Ãcrit :
>
>> Snip
>> Both patches have been regression tested on trunk on x86_64-linux.
>>
>> OK for trunk [first patch]?
>> OK for 4.9 and 5 (after the 5.1 release) [second patch]?
>>
>> Mikael
>>
>> PS: Dominiq reported that the variant of this patch posted on the PR was
>> also fixing PR49324. I couldn't confirm as what seems to be the
>> remaining testcase there (comment #6) doesn't fail with trunk here.
>
> I have tested both patches on my working tree and on a clean one, but only on top of the [better patch] for pr61831, without the hunk
>
> @@ -4990,7 +5010,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol *
>
> tmp = gfc_deallocate_alloc_comp (e->ts.u.derived, tmp, parm_rank);
>
> - gfc_add_expr_to_block (&se->post, tmp);
> + gfc_prepend_expr_to_block (&se->post, tmp);
> }
>
> /* Add argument checking of passing an unallocated/NULL actual to
>
>
> as said in pr61831 comment 45 (the above hunk causes a regression for gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_10.f90).
>
> AFAICT this is the [better patch] which fixes PR49324.
>
> Now Andre Vehreschild has submitted a patch for pr59678 at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00061.html. Andre's patch works well with the [second patch]+[better patch], but leads to a regression for gfortran.dg/class_19.f03 (pr65792 comment 3) with the [first patch]+[better patch]. So if the [first patch] is chosen, it will require some change(s) in Andreâs patch.
>
> Thanks for working on these issues,
>
> Dominique
>