* [PATCH] Fortran: fix simplification of INDEX(str1,str2) [PR105691]
@ 2022-06-21 21:27 Harald Anlauf
2022-06-26 9:14 ` Thomas Koenig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Harald Anlauf @ 2022-06-21 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fortran, gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]
Dear all,
compile time simplification of INDEX(str1,str2,back=.true.) gave wrong
results. Looking at gfc_simplify_index, this appeared to be close to
a complete mess, while the runtime library code - which was developed
later - was a relief.
The solution is to use the runtime library code as template to fix this.
I took the opportunity to change string index and length variables
in gfc_simplify_index to HOST_WIDE_INT.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
As this is a wrong-code issue, would this qualify for backports to
open branches?
Thanks,
Harald
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Fortran-fix-simplification-of-INDEX-str1-str2-PR1056.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 5831 bytes --]
From 2cfe8034340424ffa15784c61584634ccac4c4fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:20:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: fix simplification of INDEX(str1,str2) [PR105691]
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/105691
* simplify.cc (gfc_simplify_index): Replace old simplification
code by the equivalent of the runtime library implementation. Use
HOST_WIDE_INT instead of int for string index, length variables.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/105691
* gfortran.dg/index_6.f90: New test.
---
gcc/fortran/simplify.cc | 131 ++++++--------------------
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/index_6.f90 | 31 ++++++
2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/index_6.f90
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
index c8f2ef9fbf4..e8e3ec63669 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/simplify.cc
@@ -3515,17 +3515,15 @@ gfc_expr *
gfc_simplify_index (gfc_expr *x, gfc_expr *y, gfc_expr *b, gfc_expr *kind)
{
gfc_expr *result;
- int back, len, lensub;
- int i, j, k, count, index = 0, start;
+ bool back;
+ HOST_WIDE_INT len, lensub, start, last, i, index = 0;
+ int k, delta;
if (x->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT || y->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT
|| ( b != NULL && b->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT))
return NULL;
- if (b != NULL && b->value.logical != 0)
- back = 1;
- else
- back = 0;
+ back = (b != NULL && b->value.logical != 0);
k = get_kind (BT_INTEGER, kind, "INDEX", gfc_default_integer_kind);
if (k == -1)
@@ -3542,111 +3540,40 @@ gfc_simplify_index (gfc_expr *x, gfc_expr *y, gfc_expr *b, gfc_expr *kind)
return result;
}
- if (back == 0)
+ if (lensub == 0)
{
- if (lensub == 0)
- {
- mpz_set_si (result->value.integer, 1);
- return result;
- }
- else if (lensub == 1)
- {
- for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
- {
- for (j = 0; j < lensub; j++)
- {
- if (y->value.character.string[j]
- == x->value.character.string[i])
- {
- index = i + 1;
- goto done;
- }
- }
- }
- }
+ if (back)
+ index = len + 1;
else
- {
- for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
- {
- for (j = 0; j < lensub; j++)
- {
- if (y->value.character.string[j]
- == x->value.character.string[i])
- {
- start = i;
- count = 0;
-
- for (k = 0; k < lensub; k++)
- {
- if (y->value.character.string[k]
- == x->value.character.string[k + start])
- count++;
- }
-
- if (count == lensub)
- {
- index = start + 1;
- goto done;
- }
- }
- }
- }
- }
+ index = 1;
+ goto done;
+ }
+ if (!back)
+ {
+ last = len + 1 - lensub;
+ start = 0;
+ delta = 1;
}
else
{
- if (lensub == 0)
- {
- mpz_set_si (result->value.integer, len + 1);
- return result;
- }
- else if (lensub == 1)
+ last = -1;
+ start = len - lensub;
+ delta = -1;
+ }
+
+ for (; start != last; start += delta)
+ {
+ for (i = 0; i < lensub; i++)
{
- for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
- {
- for (j = 0; j < lensub; j++)
- {
- if (y->value.character.string[j]
- == x->value.character.string[len - i])
- {
- index = len - i + 1;
- goto done;
- }
- }
- }
+ if (x->value.character.string[start + i]
+ != y->value.character.string[i])
+ break;
}
- else
+ if (i == lensub)
{
- for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
- {
- for (j = 0; j < lensub; j++)
- {
- if (y->value.character.string[j]
- == x->value.character.string[len - i])
- {
- start = len - i;
- if (start <= len - lensub)
- {
- count = 0;
- for (k = 0; k < lensub; k++)
- if (y->value.character.string[k]
- == x->value.character.string[k + start])
- count++;
-
- if (count == lensub)
- {
- index = start + 1;
- goto done;
- }
- }
- else
- {
- continue;
- }
- }
- }
- }
+ index = start + 1;
+ goto done;
}
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/index_6.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/index_6.f90
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..61d492985ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/index_6.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+! { dg-do compile }
+! { dg-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
+! PR fortran/105691 - Incorrect calculation of INDEX(str1,str2) at compile time
+
+program main
+ implicit none
+ integer :: i
+ character(*), parameter :: s1 = "fortran.f90"
+ character(*), parameter :: s2 = "fortran"
+ character(*), parameter :: s3 = s2 // "*"
+ integer, parameter :: i0 = index(s1, s2)
+ integer, parameter :: i1 = index(s1, s2, back= .true.)
+ integer, parameter :: i2(*) = index(s1, s2, back=[.true.,.false.])
+ integer, parameter :: i3(*) = index(s1, s2, back=[(i==1, i=1,2)] )
+ integer, parameter :: i4 = index(s1, s3)
+ integer, parameter :: i5 = index(s1, s3, back= .true.)
+ integer, parameter :: i6(*) = index(s1, s3, back=[.true.,.false.])
+ integer, parameter :: i7(*) = index(s1, s3, back=[(i==1, i=1,2)] )
+ integer, parameter :: i8 = index(s1, "f", back= .true.)
+ if ( i0 /= 1 ) stop 1
+ if ( i1 /= 1 ) stop 2
+ if (any (i2 /= 1)) stop 3
+ if (any (i3 /= 1)) stop 4
+ if ( i4 /= 0 ) stop 5
+ if ( i5 /= 0 ) stop 6
+ if (any (i6 /= 0)) stop 7
+ if (any (i7 /= 0)) stop 8
+ if (i8 /= len(s1)-2) stop 9
+end program
+
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "_gfortran_stop_numeric" "original" } }
--
2.35.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix simplification of INDEX(str1,str2) [PR105691]
2022-06-21 21:27 [PATCH] Fortran: fix simplification of INDEX(str1,str2) [PR105691] Harald Anlauf
@ 2022-06-26 9:14 ` Thomas Koenig
2022-06-26 20:22 ` Harald Anlauf
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Koenig @ 2022-06-26 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Anlauf, fortran, gcc-patches
Hello Harald,
> compile time simplification of INDEX(str1,str2,back=.true.) gave wrong
> results. Looking at gfc_simplify_index, this appeared to be close to
> a complete mess, while the runtime library code - which was developed
> later - was a relief.
>
> The solution is to use the runtime library code as template to fix this.
> I took the opportunity to change string index and length variables
> in gfc_simplify_index to HOST_WIDE_INT.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
>
> As this is a wrong-code issue, would this qualify for backports to
> open branches?
OK for both.
Thanks for the patch!
Best regards
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix simplification of INDEX(str1,str2) [PR105691]
2022-06-26 9:14 ` Thomas Koenig
@ 2022-06-26 20:22 ` Harald Anlauf
2022-06-26 20:22 ` Harald Anlauf
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Harald Anlauf @ 2022-06-26 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Koenig, fortran
Hi Thomas,
thanks for the reviews!
Harald
Am 26.06.22 um 11:14 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Fortran:
> Hello Harald,
>
>> compile time simplification of INDEX(str1,str2,back=.true.) gave wrong
>> results. Looking at gfc_simplify_index, this appeared to be close to
>> a complete mess, while the runtime library code - which was developed
>> later - was a relief.
>>
>> The solution is to use the runtime library code as template to fix this.
>> I took the opportunity to change string index and length variables
>> in gfc_simplify_index to HOST_WIDE_INT.
>>
>> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
>>
>> As this is a wrong-code issue, would this qualify for backports to
>> open branches?
>
> OK for both.
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix simplification of INDEX(str1,str2) [PR105691]
2022-06-26 20:22 ` Harald Anlauf
@ 2022-06-26 20:22 ` Harald Anlauf
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Harald Anlauf @ 2022-06-26 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fortran
Hi Thomas,
thanks for the reviews!
Harald
Am 26.06.22 um 11:14 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Fortran:
> Hello Harald,
>
>> compile time simplification of INDEX(str1,str2,back=.true.) gave wrong
>> results. Looking at gfc_simplify_index, this appeared to be close to
>> a complete mess, while the runtime library code - which was developed
>> later - was a relief.
>>
>> The solution is to use the runtime library code as template to fix this.
>> I took the opportunity to change string index and length variables
>> in gfc_simplify_index to HOST_WIDE_INT.
>>
>> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
>>
>> As this is a wrong-code issue, would this qualify for backports to
>> open branches?
>
> OK for both.
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-06-26 20:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-21 21:27 [PATCH] Fortran: fix simplification of INDEX(str1,str2) [PR105691] Harald Anlauf
2022-06-26 9:14 ` Thomas Koenig
2022-06-26 20:22 ` Harald Anlauf
2022-06-26 20:22 ` Harald Anlauf
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).