[Bug fortran/25073] New: better diagnostic needed

[Bug fortran/25073] New: better diagnostic needed

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

using GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.1.0 20051126 (prerelease)  with '-g -pedantic
-std=f95', I get a bad / no diagnostic for the following invalid code:

LOGICAL :: L
SELECT CASE(L)
CASE(.true.)
CASE(.false.)
CASE(.true.)
END SELECT
END


-- 
           Summary: better diagnostic needed
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-26 19:54 -------
gfortran doesn't detect that the CASEs overlap.

## g95 ##
In file foo.f90:3

CASE(.true.)
     1
In file foo.f90:5

CASE(.true.)
     2
Error: CASEs at (1) and (2) overlap
## Intel ##
fortcom: Error: foo.f90, line 5: This case-value or case-value-range matches a
case-value in another case-value-range within the same case-construct.
CASE(.true.)
-----^
compilation aborted for foo.f90 (code 1)
## Portland ##
PGF90-S-0310-Duplicate case value  (foo.f90: 5)
  0 inform,   0 warnings,   1 severes, 0 fatal for MAIN
## Sun ##

CASE(.true.)
     ^
"foo.f90", Line = 5, Column = 6: ERROR: The case value has the same value as a
case value on line 3.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-11-26 19:54:13
               date|                            |
            Summary|better diagnostic needed    |CASEs overlap


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-02-26 19:49 -------
We do get a warning:
 In file t.f90:2

SELECT CASE(L)
             1
Warning: Logical SELECT CASE block at (1) has more that two cases


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-04-17 19:38 -------
This is now fixed on mainline and 4.1:

$ cat case.f90
program main
  logical :: l
  select case (l)
  case (.true.)
  case (.true.)
  end select
end program main
$ gfortran case.f90
 In file case.f90:4

  case (.true.)
       1
 In file case.f90:5

  case (.true.)
       2
Error: CASE label at (1) overlaps with CASE label at (2)
$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../../gcc/trunk/configure --prefix=/home/ig25
--enable-languages=c,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060412 (experimental)

All we need now is a test case, then we can close this.


-- 

tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] [missing testcase] CASEs overlap

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-05 21:47 -------
I'll commit a testcase when I find some time this week-end...


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Keywords|accepts-invalid             |
   Last reconfirmed|2005-11-26 19:54:13         |2006-05-05 21:47:50
               date|                            |
            Summary|CASEs overlap               |[missing testcase] CASEs
                   |                            |overlap


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] [missing testcase] CASEs overlap

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-08 09:48 -------
Humpf, I created a testcase for inclusion in the testsuite, but it reveals that
overlap of logical cases is not detected when they're separated from each
other:

  select case (l)
  case (.true.)
  case (.false.)
  case (.true.)
  end select

In this case, the overlap is not detected. The "same" code works fine with
integer or character variables, and I'm not sure why logicals are a special
case.

Thomas, can you give it a try since you designed the original patch?


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
         AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] [missing testcase] CASEs overlap

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-08 22:15 -------

> Thomas, can you give it a try since you designed the original patch?

Actually, I didn't; I completely missed the original test case,
checked this with my own (which didn't expose the error) and
then rashly concluded that this was indeed fixed.  Sorry.

I'll have a look at this, though.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-31 21:10 -------
This is a real bug, and not an issue of a missing
test case.


-- 

tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[missing testcase] CASEs    |CASEs overlap
                   |overlap                     |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr]

------- Comment #8 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr  2006-06-22 14:25 -------
Created an attachment (id=11728)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11728&action=view)
A patch to fix the PR.

A straightforward fix in resolve.c (resolve_select).

Paul


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr]

------- Comment #9 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr  2006-06-22 14:31 -------

> A straightforward fix in resolve.c (resolve_select).

In checking the attachment, I have just seen that the if condition can be
simplified to

              if (cp->low->value.logical & seen_logical)
                {
                  gfc_error ("constant logical value in CASE statement "
                             "is repeated at %L",
                             &cp->low->where);
                  t = FAILURE;
                  break;
                }
              seen_logical |= cp->low->value.logical == 0 ? 2 : 1;

Paul


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-25 15:11 -------
Subject: Bug 25073

Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/25056
        * interface.c (compare_actual_formal): Signal an error if the formal
        argument is a pure procedure and the actual is not pure.

        PR fortran/27554
        * resolve.c (resolve_actual_arglist): If the type of procedure
        passed as an actual argument is not already declared, see if it is
        an intrinsic.

        PR fortran/25073
        * resolve.c (resolve_select): Use bits 1 and 2 of a new int to
        keep track of  the appearance of constant logical case expressions.
        Signal an error is either value appears more than once.

        PR fortran/20874
        * resolve.c (resolve_fl_procedure): Signal an error if an elemental
        function is not scalar valued.

        PR fortran/20867
        * match.c (recursive_stmt_fcn): Perform implicit typing of variables.

        PR fortran/22038
        * match.c (match_forall_iterator): Mark new variables as
        FL_UNKNOWN if the match fails.

        PR fortran/28119
        * match.c (gfc_match_forall): Remove extraneous call to
        gfc_match_eos.

        PR fortran/25072
        * resolve.c (resolve_code, resolve_function): Rework
        forall_flag scheme so that it is set and has a value of
        2, when the code->expr (ie. the forall mask) is resolved.
        This is used to change "block" to "mask" in the non-PURE
        error message.


2006-06-25  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/20867
        * gfortran.dg/stfunc_3.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/25056
        * gfortran.dg/impure_actual_1.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/20874
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_result_1.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/25073
        * gfortran.dg/select_7.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/27554
        * intrinsic_actual_1.f: New test.

        PR fortran/22038
        PR fortran/28119
        * gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/25072
        * gfortran.dg/forall_5.f90: New test.



Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_result_1.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/forall_5.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/impure_actual_1.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/intrinsic_actual_1.f
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_7.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/stfunc_3.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/match.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-25 18:08 -------
Subject: Bug 25073

Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/25056
        * interface.c (compare_actual_formal): Signal an error if the formal
        argument is a pure procedure and the actual is not pure.

        PR fortran/27554
        * resolve.c (resolve_actual_arglist): If the type of procedure
        passed as an actual argument is not already declared, see if it is
        an intrinsic.

        PR fortran/25073
        * resolve.c (resolve_select): Use bits 1 and 2 of a new int to
        keep track of  the appearance of constant logical case expressions.
        Signal an error is either value appears more than once.

        PR fortran/20874
        * resolve.c (resolve_fl_procedure): Signal an error if an elemental
        function is not scalar valued.

        PR fortran/20867
        * match.c (recursive_stmt_fcn): Perform implicit typing of variables.

        PR fortran/22038
        * match.c (match_forall_iterator): Mark new variables as
        FL_UNKNOWN if the match fails.

        PR fortran/28119
        * match.c (gfc_match_forall): Remove extraneous call to
        gfc_match_eos.

        PR fortran/25072
        * resolve.c (resolve_code, resolve_function): Rework
        forall_flag scheme so that it is set and has a value of
        2, when the code->expr (ie. the forall mask) is resolved.
        This is used to change "block" to "mask" in the non-PURE
        error message.


2006-06-25  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/20867
        * gfortran.dg/stfunc_3.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/25056
        * gfortran.dg/impure_actual_1.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/20874
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_result_1.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/25073
        * gfortran.dg/select_7.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/27554
        * intrinsic_actual_1.f: New test.

        PR fortran/22038
        PR fortran/28119
        * gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90: New test.

        PR fortran/25072
        * gfortran.dg/forall_5.f90: New test.



Added:
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_result_1.f90
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/forall_5.f90
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/impure_actual_1.f90
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/intrinsic_actual_1.f
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_7.f90
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/stfunc_3.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fortran/interface.c
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fortran/match.c
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073

[Bug fortran/25073] CASEs overlap

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-25 18:11 -------
Fixed on trunk and 4.1

Paul


-- 

pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25073