[PATCH, Fortran] Wrong invocation of caf_atomic_op

[Alessandro Fanfarillo]

In attachment a test case which fails with the current gcc-trunk
version but works when the patch is applied. coarray_35.f90 is my
attempt to write a gcc test case.
The problem is related with atomic_add.

2014-09-15 12:55 GMT-06:00 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>:
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: coarray_35.f90
Type: text/x-fortran
Size: 409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/attachments/20140915/9a420ffd/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: testAtomics.f90
Type: text/x-fortran
Size: 396 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/attachments/20140915/9a420ffd/attachment-0001.bin>