**ping** Re: [PATCH] Automatics in equivalence statements

[Mark Eggleston]

**ping**

On 01/07/2019 10:35, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>
> On 25/06/2019 14:17, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>>
>> On 25/06/2019 00:17, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 6/24/19 2:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:11 -0700
>>>> Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:31:51PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>>>>>> Currently variables with the AUTOMATIC attribute can not appear 
>>>>>> in an
>>>>>> EQUIVALENCE statement. However its counterpart, STATIC, can be 
>>>>>> used in
>>>>>> an EQUIVALENCE statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where there is a clear conflict in the attributes of variables in an
>>>>>> EQUIVALENCE statement an error message will be issued as is 
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>> the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is no conflict e.g. a variable with a AUTOMATIC 
>>>>>> attribute and a
>>>>>> variable(s) without attributes all variables in the EQUIVALENCE will
>>>>>> become AUTOMATIC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: most of this patch was written by Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ChangeLogs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gcc/fortran
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Jeff Law  <law@redhat.com>
>>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  Mark Eggleston <mark.eggleston@codethink.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  * gfortran.h: Add check_conflict declaration.
>>>>> This is wrong.  By convention a routine that is not static
>>>>> has the gfc_ prefix.
> Updated the code to use gfc_check_conflict instead.
>>>>>
>>>> Furthermore doesn't this export indicate that you're committing a
>>>> layering violation somehow?
>>> Possibly.  I'm the original author, but my experience in our fortran
>>> front-end is minimal.  I fully expected this patch to need some 
>>> tweaking.
>>>
>>> We certainly don't want to recreate all the checking that's done in
>>> check_conflict.  We just need to defer it to a later point --
>>> find_equivalence seemed like a good point since we've got the full
>>> equivalence list handy and can accumulate the attributes across the
>>> entire list, then check for conflicts.
>>>
>>> If there's a concrete place where you think we should be doing this, 
>>> I'm
>>> all ears.
>>>
>> Any suggestions will be appreciate.
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  * symbol.c (check_conflict): Remove automatic in equivalence 
>>>>> conflict
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  check.
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  * symbol.c (save_symbol): Add check for in equivalence to 
>>>>> stop the
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  the save attribute being added.
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (build_equiv_decl): Add is_auto parameter and
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  add !is_auto to condition where TREE_STATIC (decl) is set.
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (build_equiv_decl): Add local variable 
>>>>> is_auto,
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  set it true if an atomatic attribute is encountered in the 
>>>>> variable
>>>> atomatic? I read atomic but you mean automatic.
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>>       list.  Call build_equiv_decl with is_auto as an additional 
>>>>> parameter.
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  flag_dec_format_defaults is enabled.
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (accumulate_equivalence_attributes) : New 
>>>>> subroutine.
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (find_equivalence) : New local variable 
>>>>> dummy_symbol,
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  accumulated equivalence attributes from each symbol then 
>>>>> check for
>>>>> Â  Â Â Â  conflicts.
>>>> I'm just curious why you don't gfc_copy_attr for the most part of 
>>>> accumulate_equivalence_attributes?
>>>> thanks,
>>> Simply didn't know about it.  It could probably significantly simplify
>>> the accumulation of attributes step.
>> Using gfc_copy_attr causes a great many "Duplicate DIMENSION 
>> attribute specified at (1)" errors. This is because there is a great 
>> deal of checking done instead of simply keeping track of the 
>> attributes used which is all that is required for determining whether 
>> there is a conflict in the equivalence statement.
>>
>> Also, the final section of accumulate_equivalence_attributes 
>> involving SAVE, INTENT and ACCESS look suspect to me. I'll check and 
>> update the patch if necessary.
>
> No need to check intent as there is already a conflict with DUMMY and 
> INTENT can only be present for dummy variables.
>
> Please find attached an updated patch. Change logs:
>
> gcc/fortran
>
>     Jeff Law  <law@redhat.com>
>     Mark Eggleston  <mark.eggleston@codethink.com>
>
> Â Â Â  * gfortran.h: Add gfc_check_conflict declaration.
> Â Â Â  * symbol.c (check_conflict): Rename cfg_check_conflict and remove
> Â Â Â  static.
> Â Â Â  * symbol.c (cfg_check_conflict): Remove automatic in equivalence
> Â Â Â  conflict check.
> Â Â Â  * symbol.c (save_symbol): Add check for in equivalence to stop the
> Â Â Â  the save attribute being added.
> Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (build_equiv_decl): Add is_auto parameter and
> Â Â Â  add !is_auto to condition where TREE_STATIC (decl) is set.
> Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (build_equiv_decl): Add local variable is_auto,
> Â Â Â  set it true if an atomatic attribute is encountered in the variable
>     list.  Call build_equiv_decl with is_auto as an additional parameter.
> Â Â Â  flag_dec_format_defaults is enabled.
> Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (accumulate_equivalence_attributes) : New 
> subroutine.
> Â Â Â  * trans-common.c (find_equivalence) : New local variable 
> dummy_symbol,
> Â Â Â  accumulated equivalence attributes from each symbol then check for
> Â Â Â  conflicts.
>
> gcc/testsuite
>
> Â Â Â  Mark Eggleston <mark.eggleston@codethink.com>
>
> Â Â Â  * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_1.f90: New test.
> Â Â Â  * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_2.f90: New test.
> Â Â Â  * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90: New test.
>
> If the updated patch is acceptable, please can someone with the 
> privileges commit the patch.
>
> Mark
>
>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
-- 
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Allow-automatics-in-equivalence.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 23778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20190708/2de51d29/attachment.bin>