Le 17/09/2022 à 19:03, Thomas Koenig via Fortran a écrit :
> 
> Hi Mikael,
> 
>> This adds support for clobbering of partial variable references, when
>> they are passed as actual argument and the associated dummy has the
>> INTENT(OUT) attribute.
>> Support includes array elements, derived type component references,
>> and complex real or imaginary parts.
>>
>> This is done by removing the check for lack of subreferences, which is
>> basically a revert of r9-4911-gbd810d637041dba49a5aca3d085504575374ac6f.
>> This removal allows more expressions than just array elements,
>> components and complex parts, but the other expressions are excluded by
>> other conditions: substrings are excluded by the check on expression
>> type (CHARACTER is excluded), KIND and LEN references are rejected by
>> the compiler as not valid in a variable definition context.
>>
>> The check for scalarness is also updated as it was only valid when there
>> was no subreference.
> 
> First, thanks a lot for digging into this subject. I have looked through
> the patch series, and it looks very good so far.
> 
> I have a concern about this part, though.  My understanding at the
> time was that it is not possible to clobber an individual array
> element, but that this clobbers anything off the pointer that this
> is based on.
> 
Well, we need the middle-end guys to give a definitive answer on this 
topic, but I think it would be a very penalizing limitation if that was 
the case.  I have assumed that the clobber spanned the value it was 
applied on, neither more nor less, so just the array element in case of 
array elements.

> So,
> 
>    integer, dimension(3) :: a
> 
>    a(1) = 1
>    a(3) = 3
>    call foo(a(1))
> 
> would also invalidate the store to a(3).  Is my understanding correct?

I think it was the case before patch 2 in in the series, because the 
clobber was applied to the symbol decl, so in the case of the expression 
A(1), it was applied to A which is the full array.  After patch 2, the 
clobber is applied to the expression A(1), so the element alone.

> If so, I think this we cannot revert that patch (which was introduced
> because of a regression).
> 
The testcase from the patch was not specifically checking lack of 
side-effect clobbers, so I have double-checked with the following 
testcase, which should lift your concerns.
I propose to keep the patch with the testcase added to it.  What do you 
think?

Mikael