[Patch, Fortran, 66035, v2] [5/6 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault

[Andre Vehreschild]

Hi Paul, 

thanks for the review, commited as r225928.

Regards,
	Andre

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:40:29 +0200
Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Andre,
> 
> I am still in the bizarre situation that the testcase compiles and
> runs correctly on a clean trunk!
> 
> That said, the patch applies cleanly and, at very least from my point
> of view, does not do any harm :-)
> 
> OK for trunk
> 
> Thanks for the patch
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 11 July 2015 at 14:08, Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi Mikael,
> >
> >> > @@ -7030,7 +7053,8 @@ gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign (tree dest,
> >> > gfc_component * cm, gfc_expr * expr, gfc_add_expr_to_block (&block, tmp);
> >> >      }
> >> >    else if (init && (cm->attr.allocatable
> >> > -      || (cm->ts.type == BT_CLASS && CLASS_DATA
> >> > (cm)->attr.allocatable)))
> >> > +      || (cm->ts.type == BT_CLASS && CLASS_DATA (cm)->attr.allocatable
> >> > +          && expr->ts.type != BT_CLASS)))
> >> >      {
> >> >        /* Take care about non-array allocatable components here.  The
> >> > alloc_* routine below is motivated by the alloc_scalar_allocatable_for_
> >> > @@ -7074,6 +7098,14 @@ gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign (tree dest,
> >> > gfc_component * cm, gfc_expr * expr, tmp = gfc_build_memcpy_call (tmp,
> >> > se.expr, size); gfc_add_expr_to_block (&block, tmp);
> >> >     }
> >> > +      else if (cm->ts.type == BT_CLASS && expr->ts.type == BT_CLASS)
> >> > +   {
> >> > +     tmp = gfc_copy_class_to_class (se.expr, dest, integer_one_node,
> >> > +                              CLASS_DATA
> >> > (cm)->attr.unlimited_polymorphic);
> >> > +     gfc_add_expr_to_block (&block, tmp);
> >> > +     gfc_add_modify (&block, gfc_class_vptr_get (dest),
> >> > +                     gfc_class_vptr_get (se.expr));
> >> > +   }
> >> >        else
> >> >     gfc_add_modify (&block, tmp,
> >> >                     fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (tmp), se.expr));
> >> But this hunk is canceled by the one before, isn't it?
> >> I mean, If the condition here is true, the condition before was false?
> >
> > You are absolutely right. The second hunk is dead code and removed in the
> > attached patch. That must have been the first attempt to address the issue
> > and later on I did not perceive that it was useless. Sorry for that.
> >
> > Regards,
> >         Andre
> > --
> > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: submit.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3598 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/attachments/20150717/2d7eb59a/attachment.bin>