[Bug fortran/32580] New: iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer

[Bug fortran/32580] New: iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

The following program doesn't compile & link:

---- test_f90.f90 ----
MODULE X

  USE ISO_C_BINDING
  INTERFACE
    REAL(KIND=C_FLOAT) FUNCTION mytype( a ) BIND(C)
       USE ISO_C_BINDING
       INTEGER(KIND=C_INT), VALUE :: a
    END FUNCTION
    SUBROUTINE init() BIND(C,name="init")
    END SUBROUTINE
  END INTERFACE

  TYPE(C_FUNPTR), BIND(C,name="funpointer") :: funpointer

END MODULE X

USE X
PROCEDURE(mytype), POINTER :: ptype

CALL init()
CALL C_F_PROCPOINTER(funpointer,ptype)
write(6,*) ptype(3)

END


---- test_c.c ----
float (*funpointer)(int);

float f(int t)
{
  return t*3;
}

void init()
{
 funpointer=f;
}


test as:

> gcc -c test_c.c
> g95 test_f90.f90 test_c.o
> ./a.out
 9.


-- 
           Summary: iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            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=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2007-07-02 07:37 -------
Fixing this bug would likely allow to compile/link the full CP2K (including the
bit that depends on the ISO_C_BINDING)


-- 

jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |29975
              nThis|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-02 14:57 -------
Resolution of this bug requires the PROCEDURE POINTER feature
from Fortran 2003.  Janus Weil, a Google SoC participant, is 
working on this feature.


-- 

kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-07-02 14:57:40
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-04 18:29 -------
Clean up from my Bind(C) notes: The following should give an error such as:
Error: 'fptr' argument of 'c_f_procpointer' intrinsic at (1) must be a
PROCEDURE POINTER


  use iso_c_binding
  type(c_funptr) :: cfunptr
  real, pointer :: myFunc
  call c_f_procpointer(cfunptr, myFunc)
end


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
            Summary|iso_c_binding               |iso_c_binding
                   |c_f_procpointer             |c_f_procpointer / procedure
                   |                            |pointers


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2007-10-16 04:32 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Resolution of this bug requires the PROCEDURE POINTER feature
> from Fortran 2003.  Janus Weil, a Google SoC participant, is 
> working on this feature.
> 

SoC is over, I assume this has been put on ice ?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-16 06:46 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> SoC is over, I assume this has been put on ice ?

Yes, there was unfortunately no patch before GCC entered stage 3 (12 September)
and in stage 3 merging new features is allowed. (Besides, there is not yet a
ready patch for procedure pointers.)
In any case, before GCC 4.4 enters stage 1, at least the core developers will
concentrate on fixing bugs.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2007-10-16 08:30 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > SoC is over, I assume this has been put on ice ?
> 
> Yes, there was unfortunately no patch before GCC entered stage 3 (12 September)
> and in stage 3 merging new features is allowed. (Besides, there is not yet a
> ready patch for procedure pointers.)
> In any case, before GCC 4.4 enters stage 1, at least the core developers will
> concentrate on fixing bugs.
> 

Since adding c_f_procpointer might change the fortran runtime library, will
this addition be OK for 4.4 ?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-16 11:26 -------
> Since adding c_f_procpointer might change the fortran runtime library, will
> this addition be OK for 4.4 ?
Additions of functions is no problem; also modifying functions
arguments/functionality is no problem. However, obsolete (i.e. unused)
functions remain in the library (for old programs).

If the function interface is changed, the old function remains in the library
(with the old version number) and the new version of the function is added.
If symbol versioning is supported (e.g. under Linux), old programs continue to
work flawlessly with new libraries.

Thus: Library interface changes before 4.3.0 is released are nice, because one
will not need to carry obsolete functions along; otherwise the development is
not hampered at all. For procedure pointers, I expect that one doesn't need to
touch the library at at all (but I might be wrong).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[jaydub66 at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #8 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com  2008-05-24 17:52 -------
I have a patch which can handle this test case, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-05/msg00296.html

It's not complete yet, and some details need to be fixed, but the basic
functionality is there. I hope it can be committed to trunk quite soon.

Cheers,
Janus


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2008-05-25 12:13 -------
> It's not complete yet, and some details need to be fixed, but the basic
> functionality is there. I hope it can be committed to trunk quite soon.

that would be great... I really hope this will be enough to enable the
-D__LIBINT bits of CP2K. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-29 11:29 -------
Move comment from PR 36325, see also
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/bb371413b5cbe3d7

The following is regarded as valid and did not work with one of the last
versions of proc pointer patches:

 abstract interface
   subroutine a
   end subroutine
 end interface
 procedure(a),pointer :: x
 procedure(x) :: y


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-06-02 15:32 -------
Another link dump:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/ff7ae6c7a7860bca/60213205751117d4
Some of the test cases should be checked when the proc pointer patch is ready
to ensure all are passed. (Forward carrying this link from PR 36322 which is
about to be fixed.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-07-02 19:54 -------
Subject: Bug 32580

Author: janus
Date: Wed Jul  2 19:53:37 2008
New Revision: 137386

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=137386
Log:
2008-07-02  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
            Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>
            Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/32580
        * gfortran.h (struct gfc_symbol): New member "proc_pointer".
        * check.c (gfc_check_associated,gfc_check_null): Implement
        procedure pointers.
        * decl.c (match_procedure_decl): Ditto.
        * expr.c (gfc_check_pointer_assign,gfc_check_assign_symbol): Ditto.
        * interface.c (compare_actual_formal): Ditto.
        * match.h: Ditto.
        * match.c (gfc_match_pointer_assignment): Ditto.
        * parse.c (parse_interface): Ditto.
        * primary.c (gfc_match_rvalue,match_variable): Ditto.
        * resolve.c (resolve_fl_procedure): Ditto.
        * symbol.c (check_conflict,gfc_add_external,gfc_add_pointer,
        gfc_copy_attr,gen_fptr_param,build_formal_args): Ditto.
        * trans-decl.c (get_proc_pointer_decl,gfc_get_extern_function_decl,
        create_function_arglist): Ditto.
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_variable,gfc_conv_function_val,
        gfc_conv_function_call,gfc_trans_pointer_assignment): Ditto.


2008-07-02  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
            Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>

        PR fortran/32580
        * gfortran.dg/c_f_pointer_tests_3.f90: Updated.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_decl_1.f90: Updated.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_1.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_2.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_3.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_4.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_5.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_6.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90: New.
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_8.f90: New.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_1.f90   (with props)
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_2.f90   (with props)
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_3.f90   (with props)
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_4.f90   (with props)
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_5.f90   (with props)
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_6.f90   (with props)
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_8.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_8.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/check.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/match.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/match.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/parse.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/primary.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c_f_pointer_tests_3.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_decl_1.f90

Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_1.f90
            ('svn:executable' added)

Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_2.f90
            ('svn:executable' added)

Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_3.f90
            ('svn:executable' added)

Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_4.f90
            ('svn:executable' added)

Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_5.f90
            ('svn:executable' added)

Propchange: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_6.f90
            ('svn:executable' added)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-07-02 20:19 -------
Closing.


-- 

janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-07-02 20:19 -------
Fixed with rev 137386. Btw I have also tried compiling the whole CP2K, which
seems to work fine.


-- 

janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2007-07-02 14:57:40         |2008-07-02 20:19:25
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580

[Bug fortran/32580] iso_c_binding c_f_procpointer / procedure pointers

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #15 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2008-07-03 13:43 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Fixed with rev 137386. Btw I have also tried compiling the whole CP2K, which
> seems to work fine.
> 
I've also checked that gfortran now appears to compile correctly the procedure
pointer part of CP2K. That's great... many thanks.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580