[PATCH] Automatics in equivalence statements

[Mark Eggleston]

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>
>>>>       Mark Eggleston  <mark.eggleston@codethink.com>
>>>>
>>>>   Â Â Â  * gfortran.h: Add check_conflict declaration.
>>> This is wrong.  By convention a routine that is not static
>>> has the gfc_ prefix.
>>>
>> 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  * symbol.c (check_conflict): Remove automatic in equivalence conflict
>>>   Â Â Â  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
>> atomatic? I read atomic but you mean automatic.
> Yes.
>
>>>       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.
>> 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.

> Jeff
>
>
>
-- 
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html