This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/78240 -- kludge of the day
- From: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- Cc: Fritz Reese <fritzoreese at gmail dot com>, fortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:58:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/78240 -- kludge of the day
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20171109220207.GA38424@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAE4aFA=MiheBQCjmVWuPpvvQNxjhupz=n=cRAae+ns=A6VniWQ@mail.gmail.com> <20171114003252.GA80291@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Hi guys,
I see this new test case failing on x86_64-linux-gnu:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78240.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
$ gfortran-8 pr78240.f90
pr78240.f90:11:12:
integer x(n) /1/ ! { dg-error "Nonconstant array" }
1
Error: Variable ‘n’ cannot appear in the expression at (1)
pr78240.f90:11:14:
integer x(n) /1/ ! { dg-error "Nonconstant array" }
1
Error: The module or main program array ‘x’ at (1) must have constant shape
pr78240.f90:11:19:
integer x(n) /1/ ! { dg-error "Nonconstant array" }
1
Error: Nonconstant array section at (1) in DATA statement
Cheers,
Janus
2017-11-14 1:32 GMT+01:00 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:42:31PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Steve Kargl
>> <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>> > The following patch fixes PR fortran/78240. It seems
>> > to me to be inelegant, but it does pass regression
>> > testing. [...] OK to commit?
>>
>> Upon closer analysis, the patch is insufficient to fix the PR. I will
>> explain below. At the bottom of this letter I explain and have
>> attached a new patch which fixes some more subtle issues in the code
>> which causes the PR.
>
> Thanks for taking a look. You're correct that I should
> have looked more closely at the memory management that
> you noted.
>
>> Thanks for pointing me to this issue and allowing me time to review
>> it. The new patch passes all regression tests including its two tests
>> (one for each issue above). OK to commit this one?
>
> Yes. Thanks for the patch.
>
> --
> steve