Re: [Patch, fortran] PR99602 - [11 regression] runtime error: pointer actual argument not associated

[Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>]

Hi Tobias,

Thanks for the review. I am resisting dg-run for this patch simply because
the testsuite already takes an oppressive amount of time to run. That the
runtime error is present in the code should be sufficient IMHO.

Regards

Paul


On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:46, Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul, hi all fortran@/gcc-patch@ reader,
>
> it looks as if you replied with your patch submission to the wrong email
> address – and your re-submission ended up at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/PR99602#c17
>
> On 16.03.21 18:08, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > On 16.03.21 17:42, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> Fortran: Fix runtime errors for class actual arguments [PR99602].
> >> * trans-array.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): For class formal
> >> arguments, use the _data field attributes for runtime errors.
> >> * gfortran.dg/pr99602.f90: New test.
> > Shouldn't there be also a testcase which triggers this run-time error?
>
> Note: The new submission consists of a new testcase (now two) and the
> actual patch; the new testcase removes 'pointer' from the dummy argument
> of prepare_m2_proc/prepare_whizard_m2 and checks via the
> -ftree-original-dump that there is now run-time check code inserted when
> passing a (nullified) pointer to a nonpointer dummy argument.
>
> Compared to previous patch, 'fsym_attr.pointer =
> fsym_attr.class_pointer' is new, before it was 'fsym_attr.pointer =
> fsym_attr.pointer'.
>
> Paul Richard Thomas wrote in PR99602:
>
> > Good morning all,
> >
> > I have attached the revised patch and an additional testcase. I had
> totally
> > forgotten about the class pointer gotcha.
> >
> > OK for master?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Fortran: Fix runtime errors for class actual arguments [PR99602  <
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99602>].
>
> LGTM – thanks for the patch.
>
> I am wondering whether the second testcase should be a 'dg-do run' test
> instead of 'compile' to ensure that the error is indeed triggered
> (currently, it only checks the tree dump that a check is inserted). What
> do you think? [If you do so, you need a dg-shouldfail + dg-output, cf.
> e.g. pointer_check_5.f90.]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tobias
>
> -----------------
> Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) GmbH, Arnulfstrasse 201, 80634 München
> Registergericht München HRB 106955, Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank
> Thürauf
>


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