* [patch, fortran] PR68566 ICE on using unusable array in reshape
@ 2016-04-01 21:58 Jerry DeLisle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jerry DeLisle @ 2016-04-01 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gfortran; +Cc: gcc patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 955 bytes --]
This problem is when array indexes are given that have non-integer expressions
or otherwise bad arrays, not just related to reshape.
There are several test cases presented in the PR. Most of these are fixed by
adding a check for any non-integer in match_array_element_spec. The patch-let
in gfc_simplify_reshape avoids passing a NULL shape further into simplification.
I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the PR.
Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Finding the
problems earlier in the matchers I think is the right way to go. I am curious if
the old checks ever get triggered (I will look into that a little later.
Regression tested on x86-64-linux. OK for trunk?
2016-04-02 Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/68566
* array.c (match_array_element_spec): Add check for non-integer dimension given.
* simplify.c (gfc_simplify_reshape): If source shape is NULL return.
[-- Attachment #2: pr68566.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3195 bytes --]
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.c b/gcc/fortran/array.c
index 2fc9dfa..57bdf7e 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/array.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/array.c
@@ -421,8 +421,12 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec *as)
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
- && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
+ if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
+ && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
+ ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
+ && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
+ && (*upper)->symtree
+ && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
{
gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
return AS_UNKNOWN;
@@ -448,8 +452,12 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec *as)
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
- && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
+ if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
+ && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
+ ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
+ && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
+ && (*upper)->symtree
+ && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
{
gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
return AS_UNKNOWN;
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.c b/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
index 12a8f32..a631010 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
@@ -5163,6 +5163,9 @@ gfc_simplify_reshape (gfc_expr *source, gfc_expr *shape_exp,
|| !is_constant_array_expr (order_exp))
return NULL;
+ if (source->shape == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+
/* Proceed with simplification, unpacking the array. */
mpz_init (index);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90
index df3bfd7..d8b48f2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
!
program three_body
real, parameter :: n = 2, d = 2
- real, dimension(n,d) :: x ! { dg-error "of INTEGER type|of INTEGER type" }
- x(1,:) = (/ 1.0, 0.0 /)
+ real, dimension(n,d) :: x ! { dg-error "scalar INTEGER expression" }
+ x(1,:) = (/ 1.0, 0.0 /) ! { dg-error "Unclassifiable statement" }
end program three_body
-! { dg-prune-output "have constant shape" }
+
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f
index 73e9131..5fd200a 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
! { dg-do compile }
! PR 34305 - make sure there's an error message for specifying a
program test
- parameter (datasize = 1000)
- dimension idata (datasize) ! { dg-error "must be of INTEGER type|must have constant shape" }
- idata (1) = -1
+ parameter (datasize = 1000) ! Note that datasize is defualt type real
+ dimension idata (datasize) ! { dg-error "Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression" }
end
+
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch, fortran] PR68566 ICE on using unusable array in reshape
2016-04-02 14:40 ` Jerry DeLisle
@ 2016-04-04 2:39 ` Jerry DeLisle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jerry DeLisle @ 2016-04-04 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dominique d'Humières; +Cc: fortran, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1016 bytes --]
On 04/02/2016 07:40 AM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 04/02/2016 05:42 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2 avr. 2016 à 11:44, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi Jerry,
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the PR.
>>>> Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Finding the
>>>> problems earlier in the matchers I think is the right way to go. I am curious if
>>>> the old checks ever get triggered (I will look into that a little later.
>>>
>>> (2) Before your patch the errors were
>>>
>>> Error: Expression at (1) must be of INTEGER type, found REAL
>>>
>>> How difficult is it to restore the "found … « ?
>
> I like that idea and not too difficult to do. ;)
>
Here is an updated patch with Dominique's suggestion to tell what type was found
in the error message.
Patch includes a new test case fore the original test case in the PR and updates
of existing tests.
OK for trunk?
Jerry
[-- Attachment #2: pr68566a.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 4247 bytes --]
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/array.c b/gcc/fortran/array.c
index 2fc9dfaf..1430e802 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/array.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/array.c
@@ -421,10 +421,15 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec *as)
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
- && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
- {
- gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
+ if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
+ && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
+ ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
+ && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
+ && (*upper)->symtree
+ && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
+ {
+ gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C, found %s",
+ gfc_basic_typename ((*upper)->ts.type));
return AS_UNKNOWN;
}
@@ -448,10 +453,15 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec *as)
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
- && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
+ if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
+ && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
+ ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
+ && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
+ && (*upper)->symtree
+ && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
{
- gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
+ gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C, found %s",
+ gfc_basic_typename ((*upper)->ts.type));
return AS_UNKNOWN;
}
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.c b/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
index 12a8f32e..a6310107 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.c
@@ -5163,6 +5163,9 @@ gfc_simplify_reshape (gfc_expr *source, gfc_expr *shape_exp,
|| !is_constant_array_expr (order_exp))
return NULL;
+ if (source->shape == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+
/* Proceed with simplification, unpacking the array. */
mpz_init (index);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90
index df3bfd75..ebf95e35 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
!
program three_body
real, parameter :: n = 2, d = 2
- real, dimension(n,d) :: x ! { dg-error "of INTEGER type|of INTEGER type" }
- x(1,:) = (/ 1.0, 0.0 /)
+ real, dimension(n,d) :: x ! { dg-error "Expecting a scalar INTEGER" }
+ x(1,:) = (/ 1.0, 0.0 /) ! { dg-error "Unclassifiable" }
end program three_body
-! { dg-prune-output "have constant shape" }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192_1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192_1.f90
index 77df3176..687a465f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192_1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192_1.f90
@@ -2,11 +2,11 @@
! PR fortran/36192
program three_body
real, parameter :: n = 2, d = 2
- real, dimension(n,d) :: x_hq ! { dg-error "of INTEGER type|of INTEGER type" }
+ real, dimension(n,d) :: x_hq ! { dg-error "Expecting a scalar INTEGER" }
call step(x_hq)
contains
subroutine step(x)
real, dimension(:,:), intent(in) :: x
end subroutine step
end program three_body
-! { dg-prune-output "must have constant shape" }
+! { dg-prune-output "Rank mismatch in argument" }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f
index 73e9131a..3dd1a5af 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/real_dimension_1.f
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
! { dg-do compile }
-! PR 34305 - make sure there's an error message for specifying a
+! PR 34305 - Test for specifying a real as dimension
program test
- parameter (datasize = 1000)
- dimension idata (datasize) ! { dg-error "must be of INTEGER type|must have constant shape" }
- idata (1) = -1
+ real , parameter :: dsize = 1000
+ dimension idata (dsize) ! { dg-error "scalar INTEGER expression" }
+ idata (1) = -1 ! { dg-error "must have the pointer attribute" }
end
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch, fortran] PR68566 ICE on using unusable array in reshape
2016-04-02 12:43 ` Dominique d'Humières
@ 2016-04-02 14:40 ` Jerry DeLisle
2016-04-04 2:39 ` Jerry DeLisle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jerry DeLisle @ 2016-04-02 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dominique d'Humières; +Cc: fortran, gcc-patches
On 04/02/2016 05:42 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
>> Le 2 avr. 2016 à 11:44, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>>> ...
>>> I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the PR.
>>> Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Finding the
>>> problems earlier in the matchers I think is the right way to go. I am curious if
>>> the old checks ever get triggered (I will look into that a little later.
>>
>> (2) Before your patch the errors were
>>
>> Error: Expression at (1) must be of INTEGER type, found REAL
>>
>> How difficult is it to restore the "found … « ?
I like that idea and not too difficult to do. ;)
>
> --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/array.c 2016-01-04 19:51:09.000000000 +0100
> +++ gcc/fortran/array.c 2016-04-02 14:31:08.000000000 +0200
> @@ -421,10 +421,15 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec
> if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
> return AS_UNKNOWN;
>
> - if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
> - && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
> + if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
> + && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
> + ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
> + && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
> + && (*upper)->symtree
> + && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
> {
> - gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
> + gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C, found %s",
> + gfc_basic_typename ((*upper)->ts.type));
> return AS_UNKNOWN;
> }
>
> @@ -448,10 +453,16 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec
> if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
> return AS_UNKNOWN;
>
> - if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
> - && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
> - {
> - gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
> + if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
> + && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
> + ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
> + && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
> + && (*upper)->symtree
> + && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
> + {
> + /* gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C"); */
> + gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C, found %s",
> + gfc_basic_typename ((*upper)->ts.type));
> return AS_UNKNOWN;
> }
>
> Does the trick (not regtested yet).
>
> Dominique
I will do this, also the other test that you showed failed, I thought I fixed
already, but will double check it.
Jerry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch, fortran] PR68566 ICE on using unusable array in reshape
2016-04-02 9:44 Dominique d'Humières
@ 2016-04-02 12:43 ` Dominique d'Humières
2016-04-02 14:40 ` Jerry DeLisle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dominique d'Humières @ 2016-04-02 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jvdelisle; +Cc: fortran, gcc-patches
> Le 2 avr. 2016 à 11:44, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> a écrit :
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
>> ...
>> I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the PR.
>> Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Finding the
>> problems earlier in the matchers I think is the right way to go. I am curious if
>> the old checks ever get triggered (I will look into that a little later.
>
> (2) Before your patch the errors were
>
> Error: Expression at (1) must be of INTEGER type, found REAL
>
> How difficult is it to restore the "found … « ?
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/array.c 2016-01-04 19:51:09.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/array.c 2016-04-02 14:31:08.000000000 +0200
@@ -421,10 +421,15 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
- && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
+ if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
+ && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
+ ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
+ && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
+ && (*upper)->symtree
+ && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
{
- gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
+ gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C, found %s",
+ gfc_basic_typename ((*upper)->ts.type));
return AS_UNKNOWN;
}
@@ -448,10 +453,16 @@ match_array_element_spec (gfc_array_spec
if (!gfc_expr_check_typed (*upper, gfc_current_ns, false))
return AS_UNKNOWN;
- if ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
- && (*upper)->symtree && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0)
- {
- gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C");
+ if (((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT
+ && (*upper)->ts.type != BT_INTEGER) ||
+ ((*upper)->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
+ && (*upper)->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN
+ && (*upper)->symtree
+ && strcmp ((*upper)->symtree->name, "null") == 0))
+ {
+ /* gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C"); */
+ gfc_error ("Expecting a scalar INTEGER expression at %C, found %s",
+ gfc_basic_typename ((*upper)->ts.type));
return AS_UNKNOWN;
}
Does the trick (not regtested yet).
Dominique
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch, fortran] PR68566 ICE on using unusable array in reshape
@ 2016-04-02 9:44 Dominique d'Humières
2016-04-02 12:43 ` Dominique d'Humières
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dominique d'Humières @ 2016-04-02 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jerry DeLisle; +Cc: fortran, gcc-patches
Hi Jerry,
> ...
> I will add an additional test case for the original posted problem in the PR.
> Two existing tests get exercised, changing the error message. Finding the
> problems earlier in the matchers I think is the right way to go. I am curious if
> the old checks ever get triggered (I will look into that a little later.
(1) In real_dimension_1.f, s/defualt/default/;
(2) Before your patch the errors were
Error: Expression at (1) must be of INTEGER type, found REAL
How difficult is it to restore the "found … « ?
(3) dimension(n,d) used to give two errors, one for n and one for d.
How difficult is it to restore this behavior.
> Regression tested on x86-64-linux. OK for trunk?
I see
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr36192_1.f90 -O (test for errors, line 5)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr36192_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
Thanks for working on this PR,
Dominique
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-04-04 2:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-04-01 21:58 [patch, fortran] PR68566 ICE on using unusable array in reshape Jerry DeLisle
2016-04-02 9:44 Dominique d'Humières
2016-04-02 12:43 ` Dominique d'Humières
2016-04-02 14:40 ` Jerry DeLisle
2016-04-04 2:39 ` Jerry DeLisle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).