[PATCH,fortran] Fix PR 31244

[Steve Kargl]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 11:51:06PM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> I was clearing my mail backlog, and apparently this patch wasn't  
> reviewed, sorry Steve!

No problem.  I've been busy.

> >I had an alternative patch that put a sane limit on
> >the repeat count and documented this limit in manual.
> >Personally, I preferred this patch.
> 
> Sanity check: you prefer the patch you submitted to the patch adding  
> a limit, did I get it right?

I submitted the patch that allows essentially an unlimited 
value of the repeat count.  It is a GMP integer.

The patch that I did not submit placed a cap of INT_MAX on
the size of repeat count.  The error message was changed to
state that a compiler limit was reached/exceeded.

Either patch leads to enormous compile time.  If I read the
code correctly, gfortran is populating a singly-linked list
and walking the list takes time.

> >-	  signed int tmp;
> >-	  msg = gfc_extract_int (expr, &tmp);
> >+	  if (expr->ts.type == BT_INTEGER)
> >+	    mpz_set (tail->repeat, expr->value.integer);
> > 	  gfc_free_expr (expr);
> 
> I think, to be consistent with what gfc_extract_int() did, we should  
> add a check that the expression is an EXPR_CONSTANT of type  
> BT_INTEGER, and otherwise call gfc_error(). Maybe this is already  
> checked somewhere, in which case I've missed it.

I'll check the code, again.  If EXPR_CONSTANT isn't checked currently,
I'll add a some code.

> Also, a formatting question. In the following, is the blank line  
> consistent with GCC coding style? (I don't think so, and never put one.)
> 
> > static void
> >-resolve_data (gfc_data * d)
> >+resolve_data (gfc_data *d)
> > {
> >+
> >   if (resolve_data_variables (d->var) == FAILURE)
> >     return;

I could be confusing BSD and GNU styles.  If a function has
not local variable declaration, then a blank line is inserted.

func (yada)
{
  int x;

  if (...)

as oppose to  

func (yada)
{

  if (...)

I'll check this too.

-- 
Steve