Re: [Patch, fortran] PR79402 - ICE with submodules: module procedure interface defined in parent module

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR79402 - ICE with submodules: module procedure interface defined in parent module

[Paul Richard Thomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2076 bytes --]

Dear All,

The attached rework of the patch functions in the same way as
yesterday's but is based in resolve.c rather than trans-decl.c. It
looks to me to be by far cleaner.

Bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk?

Cheers

Paul

2017-02-08  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR fortran/79344
    * resolve.c (fixup_unique_dummy): New function.
    (gfc_resolve_expr): Call it for dummy variables with a unique
    symtree name.

2017-02-08  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR fortran/79344
    * gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90: New test.



On 7 February 2017 at 16:06, Paul Richard Thomas
<paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This bug generates an ICE because the symbol for dummy 'n' in the
> specification expression for the result of 'fun1' is not the same as
> the symbol in the formal arglist. For some reason that I have been
> unable to uncover, this false dummy is associated with a unique
> symtree. The odd thing is that the dump of the parse tree for the
> failing module procedure case is identical to that where the interface
> is explcitely reproduced in the submodule. The cause of the ICE is
> that the false dummy has no backend_decl as it should.
>
> This patch hits the problem directly on the head by using the
> backend_decl from the symbol in the namespace of the formal arglist,
> as described in the comment in the patch. If it is deemed to be more
> hygenic, the chunk of code can be lifted out and deposited in a
> separate function.
>
> Bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk?
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> 2017-02-07  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
>     PR fortran/79344
>     * trans-decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl): If a dummy apparently has
>     a null backend_decl, look for a replacement symbol in the
>     namespace of the 1st formal argument and use its backend_decl.
>
> 2017-02-07  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
>     PR fortran/79344
>     * gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90: New test.



-- 
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
- Albert Einstein

[-- Attachment #2: resubmit.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2675 bytes --]

Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===================================================================
*** gcc/fortran/resolve.c	(revision 245196)
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c	(working copy)
*************** gfc_is_expandable_expr (gfc_expr *e)
*** 6433,6438 ****
--- 6433,6463 ----
    return false;
  }
  
+ 
+ /* Sometimes variables in specification expressions of the result
+    of module procedures in submodules wind up not being the 'real'
+    dummy.  Find this, if possible, in the namespace of the first
+    formal argument.  */
+ 
+ static void
+ fixup_unique_dummy (gfc_expr *e)
+ {
+   gfc_symtree *st = NULL;
+   gfc_symbol *s = NULL;
+ 
+   if (e->symtree->n.sym->ns->proc_name
+       && e->symtree->n.sym->ns->proc_name->formal)
+     s = e->symtree->n.sym->ns->proc_name->formal->sym;
+ 
+   if (s != NULL)
+     st = gfc_find_symtree (s->ns->sym_root, e->symtree->n.sym->name);
+ 
+   if (st != NULL
+       && st->n.sym != NULL
+       && st->n.sym->attr.dummy)
+     e->symtree = st;
+ }
+ 
  /* Resolve an expression.  That is, make sure that types of operands agree
     with their operators, intrinsic operators are converted to function calls
     for overloaded types and unresolved function references are resolved.  */
*************** gfc_resolve_expr (gfc_expr *e)
*** 6457,6462 ****
--- 6482,6495 ----
        actual_arg = false;
        first_actual_arg = false;
      }
+   else if (e->symtree != NULL
+ 	   && *e->symtree->name == '@'
+ 	   && e->symtree->n.sym->attr.dummy)
+     {
+       /* Deal with submodule specification expressions that are not
+ 	 found to be referenced in module.c(read_cleanup).  */
+       fixup_unique_dummy (e);
+     }
  
    switch (e->expr_type)
      {
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90
===================================================================
*** gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90	(nonexistent)
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90	(working copy)
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,29 ----
+ ! { dg-do compile }
+ !
+ ! Test the fix for PR79402, in which the module procedure 'fun1' picked
+ ! up a spurious symbol for the dummy 'n' in the specification expression
+ ! for the result 'y'.
+ !
+ ! Contributed by Chris Coutinho  <chrisbcoutinho@gmail.com>
+ !
+ module mod
+   interface myfun
+     module function fun1(n) result(y)
+       integer,  intent(in)    :: n
+       real, dimension(n)  :: y
+     end function fun1
+   end interface myfun
+ 
+ end module mod
+ 
+ submodule (mod) submod
+ contains
+   module procedure fun1
+     integer :: i
+     y = [(float (i), i = 1, n)]
+   end procedure fun1
+ end submodule
+ 
+   use mod
+   print *, fun1(10)
+ end

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR79402 - ICE with submodules: module procedure interface defined in parent module

[Steve Kargl]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:00:35PM +0000, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> 
> The attached rework of the patch functions in the same way as
> yesterday's but is based in resolve.c rather than trans-decl.c. It
> looks to me to be by far cleaner.
> 
> Bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk?
> 

OK.

__ 
Steve
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR79402 - ICE with submodules: module procedure interface defined in parent module

[Jerry DeLisle]

On 02/08/2017 08:00 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> The attached rework of the patch functions in the same way as
> yesterday's but is based in resolve.c rather than trans-decl.c. It
> looks to me to be by far cleaner.
>
> Bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk?
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> 2017-02-08  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
>     PR fortran/79344
>     * resolve.c (fixup_unique_dummy): New function.
>     (gfc_resolve_expr): Call it for dummy variables with a unique
>     symtree name.
>
> 2017-02-08  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
>     PR fortran/79344
>     * gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90: New test.
>
>
>
> On 7 February 2017 at 16:06, Paul Richard Thomas
> <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> This bug generates an ICE because the symbol for dummy 'n' in the
>> specification expression for the result of 'fun1' is not the same as
>> the symbol in the formal arglist. For some reason that I have been
>> unable to uncover, this false dummy is associated with a unique
>> symtree. The odd thing is that the dump of the parse tree for the
>> failing module procedure case is identical to that where the interface
>> is explcitely reproduced in the submodule. The cause of the ICE is
>> that the false dummy has no backend_decl as it should.
>>
>> This patch hits the problem directly on the head by using the
>> backend_decl from the symbol in the namespace of the formal arglist,
>> as described in the comment in the patch. If it is deemed to be more
>> hygenic, the chunk of code can be lifted out and deposited in a
>> separate function.
>>
>> Bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk?

Yes OK.


Jerry

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR79402 - ICE with submodules: module procedure interface defined in parent module

[Chris Coutinho]

Thanks for the quick action Paul - I hope the fix goes through

A small correction in the example problem though: there is no begin
program statement in your snippet. It still fails, as is, due to the
ICE, but I think if you make the fix this example program will still
fail to compile. A simple `program main` before `use mod` should do
the trick.

Regards,
Chris


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Paul Richard Thomas
<paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This bug generates an ICE because the symbol for dummy 'n' in the
> specification expression for the result of 'fun1' is not the same as
> the symbol in the formal arglist. For some reason that I have been
> unable to uncover, this false dummy is associated with a unique
> symtree. The odd thing is that the dump of the parse tree for the
> failing module procedure case is identical to that where the interface
> is explcitely reproduced in the submodule. The cause of the ICE is
> that the false dummy has no backend_decl as it should.
>
> This patch hits the problem directly on the head by using the
> backend_decl from the symbol in the namespace of the formal arglist,
> as described in the comment in the patch. If it is deemed to be more
> hygenic, the chunk of code can be lifted out and deposited in a
> separate function.
>
> Bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk?
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> 2017-02-07  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
>     PR fortran/79344
>     * trans-decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl): If a dummy apparently has
>     a null backend_decl, look for a replacement symbol in the
>     namespace of the 1st formal argument and use its backend_decl.
>
> 2017-02-07  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
>     PR fortran/79344
>     * gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90: New test.

[Patch, fortran] PR79402 - ICE with submodules: module procedure interface defined in parent module

[Paul Richard Thomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1269 bytes --]

Dear All,

This bug generates an ICE because the symbol for dummy 'n' in the
specification expression for the result of 'fun1' is not the same as
the symbol in the formal arglist. For some reason that I have been
unable to uncover, this false dummy is associated with a unique
symtree. The odd thing is that the dump of the parse tree for the
failing module procedure case is identical to that where the interface
is explcitely reproduced in the submodule. The cause of the ICE is
that the false dummy has no backend_decl as it should.

This patch hits the problem directly on the head by using the
backend_decl from the symbol in the namespace of the formal arglist,
as described in the comment in the patch. If it is deemed to be more
hygenic, the chunk of code can be lifted out and deposited in a
separate function.

Bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk?

Cheers

Paul

2017-02-07  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR fortran/79344
    * trans-decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl): If a dummy apparently has
    a null backend_decl, look for a replacement symbol in the
    namespace of the 1st formal argument and use its backend_decl.

2017-02-07  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR fortran/79344
    * gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90: New test.

[-- Attachment #2: submit.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2380 bytes --]

Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===================================================================
*** gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c	(revision 245196)
--- gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c	(working copy)
*************** gfc_get_symbol_decl (gfc_symbol * sym)
*** 1510,1516 ****
  	    sym->backend_decl = DECL_CHAIN (sym->backend_decl);
  	}
  
!       /* Dummy variables should already have been created.  */
        gcc_assert (sym->backend_decl);
  
        /* Create a character length variable.  */
--- 1510,1538 ----
  	    sym->backend_decl = DECL_CHAIN (sym->backend_decl);
  	}
  
!       /* Dummy variables should already have been created.  However,
! 	 sometimes variables in specification expressions of the result
! 	 of module procedures in submodules wind up not being the 'real'
! 	 dummy.  Find this, if possible, in the namespace of the first
! 	 formal argument.  */
!       if (sym->backend_decl == NULL_TREE)
! 	{
! 	  gfc_symtree *st = NULL;
! 	  gfc_symbol *s = NULL;
! 
! 	  if (sym->ns->proc_name
! 	      && sym->ns->proc_name->formal)
! 	    s = sym->ns->proc_name->formal->sym;
! 
! 	  if (s != NULL)
! 	    st = gfc_find_symtree (s->ns->sym_root, sym->name);
! 
! 	  if (st != NULL
! 	      && st->n.sym != NULL
! 	      && st->n.sym->attr.dummy)
! 	    sym->backend_decl = st->n.sym->backend_decl;
! 	}
! 
        gcc_assert (sym->backend_decl);
  
        /* Create a character length variable.  */
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90
===================================================================
*** gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90	(nonexistent)
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/submodule_23.f90	(working copy)
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,29 ----
+ ! { dg-do compile }
+ !
+ ! Test the fix for PR79402, in which the module procedure 'fun1' picked
+ ! up a spurious symbol for the dummy 'n' in the specification expression
+ ! for the result 'y'.
+ !
+ ! Contributed by Chris Coutinho  <chrisbcoutinho@gmail.com>
+ !
+ module mod
+   interface myfun
+     module function fun1(n) result(y)
+       integer,  intent(in)    :: n
+       real, dimension(n)  :: y
+     end function fun1
+   end interface myfun
+ 
+ end module mod
+ 
+ submodule (mod) submod
+ contains
+   module procedure fun1
+     integer :: i
+     y = [(float (i), i = 1, n)]
+   end procedure fun1
+ end submodule
+ 
+   use mod
+   print *, fun1(10)
+ end