[Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Janus Weil]

Hi all,

this simple patch improves some of the diagnostics for invalid
ASSOCIATE statements:

https://github.com/janusw/gcc/commit/2f484479c741abddc8ac473cb0c1b9010397e006

In particular it gives a more precise locus and improved wording,
which is achieved basically by splitting a 'gfc_match' into two
separate ones. Regtests cleanly on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?

Cheers,
Janus

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Janus Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 818 bytes --]

Am Di., 14. Aug. 2018 um 19:44 Uhr schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>:
>
> Janus,
>
> On 13 August 2018 21:44:47 CEST, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >this simple patch improves some of the diagnostics for invalid
> >ASSOCIATE statements:
> >
> >https://github.com/janusw/gcc/commit/2f484479c741abddc8ac473cb0c1b9010397e006
>
> Please do not send external references but the patch itself for posterity.

"git diff pr86935~1 pr86935 > pr86935.diff"
See attachment.

I think gcc would profit massively not only from having its primary
repository in git, but also having a proper review system
(github/gitlab give great examples, but there are lots of others by
now). Sending patches to mailing lists is so archaic and cumbersome.

Just my opinion, though ...

Cheers,
Janus

[-- Attachment #2: pr86935.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2912 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog b/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
index 6c39d9cc5d5..fef3a021981 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2018-08-13  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
+
+	PR fortran/86935
+	* match.c (gfc_match_associate): Improve diagnostics for the ASSOCIATE
+	statement.
+
 2018-08-12  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
 
 	PR fortran/66679
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.c b/gcc/fortran/match.c
index 1ab0e0fad9a..b0cf6e48f9b 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
@@ -1889,15 +1889,19 @@ gfc_match_associate (void)
       gfc_association_list* a;
 
       /* Match the next association.  */
-      if (gfc_match (" %n => %e", newAssoc->name, &newAssoc->target)
-	    != MATCH_YES)
+      if (gfc_match (" %n => ", newAssoc->name) != MATCH_YES)
+	{
+	  gfc_error ("Expected association at %C");
+	  goto assocListError;
+	}
+
+      if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
 	{
 	  /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors.  */
 	  gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
-	  if (gfc_match (" %n => %e", newAssoc->name, &newAssoc->target)
- 	      != MATCH_YES)
+	  if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
  	    {
- 	      gfc_error ("Expected association at %C");
+ 	      gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C");
  	      goto assocListError;
  	    }
 	  gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
index ad2610b91b5..f7cfc447a5b 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2018-08-13  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
+
+	PR fortran/86935
+	* gfortran.dg/associate_3.f90: Update error message.
+	* gfortran.dg/associate_39.f90: New test case.
+
 2018-08-13  Martin Sebor  <msebor@redhat.com>
 
 	PR tree-optimization/71625
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/associate_3.f03 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/associate_3.f03
index 20a375dcfd1..da7bec951d1 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/associate_3.f03
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/associate_3.f03
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ PROGRAM main
 
   ASSOCIATE (a => 1) 5 ! { dg-error "Junk after ASSOCIATE" }
 
-  ASSOCIATE (x =>) ! { dg-error "Expected association" }
+  ASSOCIATE (x =>) ! { dg-error "Invalid association target" }
 
   ASSOCIATE (=> 5) ! { dg-error "Expected association" }
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/associate_39.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/associate_39.f90
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..16357c32777
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/associate_39.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+! { dg-do compile }
+!
+! PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement
+!
+! Contributed by Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
+
+implicit none
+
+type :: t
+  real :: r = 0.5
+  integer :: i = 3
+end type
+
+type(t) :: x
+
+associate (r => x%r, &
+           i => x%ii)   ! { dg-error "Invalid association target" }
+
+end

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Fritz Reese]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:41 PM Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> [...]
> I think gcc would profit massively not only from having its primary
> repository in git, but also having a proper review system
> (github/gitlab give great examples, but there are lots of others by
> now). Sending patches to mailing lists is so archaic and cumbersome.
>
> Just my opinion, though ...
>

I agree!

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Janus Weil]

ping!


Am Di., 14. Aug. 2018 um 21:40 Uhr schrieb Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>:
>
> > >
> > >this simple patch improves some of the diagnostics for invalid
> > >ASSOCIATE statements:
> > >
> > >https://github.com/janusw/gcc/commit/2f484479c741abddc8ac473cb0c1b9010397e006
> >
> > Please do not send external references but the patch itself for posterity.
>
> "git diff pr86935~1 pr86935 > pr86935.diff"
> See attachment.

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On 21 August 2018 18:20:08 CEST, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>ping!
>
>
>Am Di., 14. Aug. 2018 um 21:40 Uhr schrieb Janus Weil
><janus@gcc.gnu.org>:
>>
>> > >
>> > >this simple patch improves some of the diagnostics for invalid
>> > >ASSOCIATE statements:
>> > >
>> >
>>https://github.com/janusw/gcc/commit/2f484479c741abddc8ac473cb0c1b9010397e006
>> >
>> > Please do not send external references but the patch itself for
>posterity.
>>
>> "git diff pr86935~1 pr86935 > pr86935.diff"
>> See attachment.
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
@@ -1889,15 +1889,19 @@ gfc_match_associate (void)
       gfc_association_list* a;
 
       /* Match the next association.  */
-      if (gfc_match (" %n => %e", newAssoc->name, &newAssoc->target)
-	    != MATCH_YES)
+      if (gfc_match (" %n => ", newAssoc->name) != MATCH_YES)

Since you match " %e", I.e. with leading optional space, I'd omit the trailing blank in " %n => ".

With that change the patch looks ok to me, but I cannot approve it.

Cheers,


+	{
+	  gfc_error ("Expected association at %C");
+	  goto assocListError;
+	}
+
+      if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
 	{

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Thomas Koenig]

Hi Janus,

>> Janus,
>>
>> On 13 August 2018 21:44:47 CEST, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this simple patch improves some of the diagnostics for invalid
>>> ASSOCIATE statements:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/janusw/gcc/commit/2f484479c741abddc8ac473cb0c1b9010397e006
>>
>> Please do not send external references but the patch itself for posterity.
> 
> "git diff pr86935~1 pr86935 > pr86935.diff"
> See attachment.

The patch is OK; you might want to take Bernhard's remark about
the trailing space after "%e" into account.

Regards

	Thomas

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Janus Weil]

Am Mi., 22. Aug. 2018 um 17:46 Uhr schrieb Thomas Koenig
<tkoenig@netcologne.de>:
>
> Hi Janus,
>
> >> Janus,
> >>
> >> On 13 August 2018 21:44:47 CEST, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> this simple patch improves some of the diagnostics for invalid
> >>> ASSOCIATE statements:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/janusw/gcc/commit/2f484479c741abddc8ac473cb0c1b9010397e006
> >>
> >> Please do not send external references but the patch itself for posterity.
> >
> > "git diff pr86935~1 pr86935 > pr86935.diff"
> > See attachment.
>
> The patch is OK; you might want to take Bernhard's remark about
> the trailing space after "%e" into account.

I have incorporated Bernhard's remark and committed as r263787.

Thanks everyone!

Cheers,
Janus

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 21:37, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Am Mi., 22. Aug. 2018 um 17:46 Uhr schrieb Thomas Koenig
> <tkoenig@netcologne.de>:
> >
> > Hi Janus,
> >
> > >> Janus,
> > >>
> > >> On 13 August 2018 21:44:47 CEST, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> this simple patch improves some of the diagnostics for invalid
> > >>> ASSOCIATE statements:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://github.com/janusw/gcc/commit/2f484479c741abddc8ac473cb0c1b9010397e006
> > >>
> > >> Please do not send external references but the patch itself for posterity.
> > >
> > > "git diff pr86935~1 pr86935 > pr86935.diff"
> > > See attachment.
> >
> > The patch is OK; you might want to take Bernhard's remark about
> > the trailing space after "%e" into account.
>
> I have incorporated Bernhard's remark and committed as r263787.

While rebasing my fortran-fe-stringpool branch i spotted one
(pre-existing) possible inconsistency that i did overlook back then:

gfc_match_associate () reads
...
      if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
        {
          /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors.  */
          gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
          if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
            {
              gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C");
              goto assocListError;
            }
          gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
        }

i.e. we retry a match, but in the second attempt we turn on procptr
assignment matching and if that works, we turn procptr assignment
matching off again.
But if we fail that retry, we forget to turn it off again.
I suppose we should:

$ svn diff -x -p gcc/fortran/match.c
Index: gcc/fortran/match.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/match.c (revision 264040)
+++ gcc/fortran/match.c (working copy)
@@ -1898,13 +1898,16 @@ gfc_match_associate (void)
       if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
  {
    /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors.  */
+   match m;
+
    gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
-   if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
+   m = gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target);
+   gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
+   if (m != MATCH_YES)
      {
        gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C");
        goto assocListError;
      }
-   gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
  }
       newAssoc->where = gfc_current_locus;


Untested. Maybe someone wants to give it a whirl...
If it wrecks havoc then leaving it set deliberately deserves at least a comment.

PS: It would be nice to get rid of gfc_matching_procptr_assignment,
gfc_matching_ptr_assignment, gfc_matching_prefix, FWIW.
cheers,
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Cheers,
> Janus

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

AFAICS current trunk still has this issue.
Any takers?
thanks,

On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 17:16:07 +0200
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:

>                                                i spotted one
> (pre-existing) possible inconsistency that i did overlook back then:
> 
> gfc_match_associate () reads
> ...
>       if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
>         {
>           /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors.  */
>           gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
>           if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
>             {
>               gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C");
>               goto assocListError;
>             }
>           gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
>         }
> 
> i.e. we retry a match, but in the second attempt we turn on procptr
> assignment matching and if that works, we turn procptr assignment
> matching off again.
> But if we fail that retry, we forget to turn it off again.
> I suppose we should:
> 
> $ svn diff -x -p gcc/fortran/match.c
> Index: gcc/fortran/match.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/fortran/match.c (revision 264040)
> +++ gcc/fortran/match.c (working copy)
> @@ -1898,13 +1898,16 @@ gfc_match_associate (void)
>        if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
>   {
>     /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors.  */
> +   match m;
> +
>     gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
> -   if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
> +   m = gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target);
> +   gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
> +   if (m != MATCH_YES)
>       {
>         gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C");
>         goto assocListError;
>       }
> -   gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
>   }
>        newAssoc->where = gfc_current_locus;
> 
> 
> Untested. Maybe someone wants to give it a whirl...
> If it wrecks havoc then leaving it set deliberately deserves at least a comment.
> 
> PS: It would be nice to get rid of gfc_matching_procptr_assignment,
> gfc_matching_ptr_assignment, gfc_matching_prefix, FWIW.
> cheers,
> >
> > Thanks everyone!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Janus  

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Harald Anlauf]

Hi Bernhard,

Am 27.10.21 um 19:40 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran:
> AFAICS current trunk still has this issue.
> Any takers?
> thanks,

can you create a PR tracking this issue?

AFAICS PR86935 has been fixed for gcc-9+.

Harald

> On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 17:16:07 +0200
> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>                                                 i spotted one
>> (pre-existing) possible inconsistency that i did overlook back then:
>>
>> gfc_match_associate () reads
>> ...
>>        if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
>>          {
>>            /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors.  */
>>            gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
>>            if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
>>              {
>>                gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C");
>>                goto assocListError;
>>              }
>>            gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
>>          }
>>
>> i.e. we retry a match, but in the second attempt we turn on procptr
>> assignment matching and if that works, we turn procptr assignment
>> matching off again.
>> But if we fail that retry, we forget to turn it off again.
>> I suppose we should:
>>
>> $ svn diff -x -p gcc/fortran/match.c
>> Index: gcc/fortran/match.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc/fortran/match.c (revision 264040)
>> +++ gcc/fortran/match.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1898,13 +1898,16 @@ gfc_match_associate (void)
>>         if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
>>    {
>>      /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors.  */
>> +   match m;
>> +
>>      gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
>> -   if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES)
>> +   m = gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target);
>> +   gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
>> +   if (m != MATCH_YES)
>>        {
>>          gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C");
>>          goto assocListError;
>>        }
>> -   gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
>>    }
>>         newAssoc->where = gfc_current_locus;
>>
>>
>> Untested. Maybe someone wants to give it a whirl...
>> If it wrecks havoc then leaving it set deliberately deserves at least a comment.
>>
>> PS: It would be nice to get rid of gfc_matching_procptr_assignment,
>> gfc_matching_ptr_assignment, gfc_matching_prefix, FWIW.
>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Janus
> 
> 

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 86935: Bad locus in ASSOCIATE statement

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 21:44:52 +0200
Harald Anlauf via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi Bernhard,
> 
> Am 27.10.21 um 19:40 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran:
> > AFAICS current trunk still has this issue.
> > Any takers?
> > thanks,  
> 
> can you create a PR tracking this issue?

now https://gcc.gnu.org/PR102973

> 
> AFAICS PR86935 has been fixed for gcc-9+.

Yes, it is a pre existing possible bug that caught my eye when i looked
at that patch, so admittedly unrelated to PR86935.

thanks,