[PATCH, Fortran] Wrong invocation of caf_atomic_op

[Tobias Burnus]

On 15.09.2014 19:18, Alessandro Fanfarillo wrote:
> New patch after the update.
>
>
> 2014-09-09 0:30 GMT-06:00 Tobias Burnus<burnus@net-b.de>:
>> >I think I'd prefer the following patch, which avoids a temporary if none is
>> >required. "value" is a pointer if the kind is the same (see kind check
>> >before) and if it is not a literal. Otherwise, it isn't a pointer and one
>> >needs to generate a temporary.
>> >
>> >I do not quite understand why the current check doesn't work as both are
>> >integer(kind=4) but for some reasons one has a variant.
>> >
>> >Additionally, I wonder whether one should add a test case – one probably
>> >should do – and of which kind (run test + fdump-tree-original?).
>>
>> >@@ -8398,3 +8398,3 @@ conv_intrinsic_atomic_op (gfc_code *code)
>> >- if (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (atom)) != TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (value)))
>> >+ if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (value)))
> 2014-09-15  Alessandro Fanfarillo<fanfarillo.gcc@gmail.com>
> 	    Tobias Burnus<burnus@net-b.de>
>
> 	* trans-intrinsic.c (conv_intrinsic_atomic_op):
> 	Check for indirect reference for caf_atomic_op value.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
> index a13b113..2d7241a 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
> @@ -8396,9 +8396,11 @@ conv_intrinsic_atomic_op (gfc_code *code)
>         else
>   	image_index = integer_zero_node;
>   
> -      if (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (atom)) != TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (value)))
> +       if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (value)))
>   	{
>   	  tmp = gfc_create_var (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (atom)), "value");
> +	  if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (value)))
> +	    value = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (input_location, value);

The second part makes no sense: If "value" is not a pointer (which is 
the first condition), it can never be a pointer (second condition).

Otherwise, the patch is okay. The reason I hadn't committed it myself 
was that I wanted to include a test case; I was wondering whether it 
should be a run test – or a -fdump-tree-original + scan-tree test – or both.

Can you create a test case?

Tobias