* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-03 23:17 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 8:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-03 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-03 23:17 -------
> I see the Fortran FE accepts excess parameters to functions and only warns
> for that with -fwhole-file ...
Well, that's not surprising - if the function is not in CONTAINS
(internal/module procedure) or in a module, the prototype is not available in
Fortran thus it is just an external procedure without any known interface (even
if it is just one line higher up).
One purpose of -fwhole-file is to allow to diagnose such things as error.
* * *
I think this is fixed by the following patch. If I understand the code
correctly, we currently only append the void_type_node if there is at least one
argument, which allows for "(...)" for procedures without any argument.
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/trans-types.c (Revision 150376)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-types.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -2324,8 +2324,7 @@ gfc_get_function_type (gfc_symbol * sym)
while (nstr--)
typelist = gfc_chainon_list (typelist, gfc_charlen_type_node);
- if (typelist)
- typelist = gfc_chainon_list (typelist, void_type_node);
+ typelist = gfc_chainon_list (typelist, void_type_node);
if (alternate_return)
type = integer_type_node;
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-03 23:17 ` [Bug fortran/40949] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-04 8:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-08-04 17:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-08-04 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-08-04 08:14 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-03 23:17 -------
> > I see the Fortran FE accepts excess parameters to functions and only warns
> > for that with -fwhole-file ...
>
> Well, that's not surprising - if the function is not in CONTAINS
> (internal/module procedure) or in a module, the prototype is not available in
> Fortran thus it is just an external procedure without any known interface (even
> if it is just one line higher up).
Ah, ok.
> One purpose of -fwhole-file is to allow to diagnose such things as error.
>
> * * *
>
> I think this is fixed by the following patch. If I understand the code
> correctly, we currently only append the void_type_node if there is at least one
> argument, which allows for "(...)" for procedures without any argument.
Well, I think you are building a new fndecl at callsites with a
prototype that matches the actual arguments passed.
> Index: gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/fortran/trans-types.c (Revision 150376)
> +++ gcc/fortran/trans-types.c (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -2324,8 +2324,7 @@ gfc_get_function_type (gfc_symbol * sym)
> while (nstr--)
> typelist = gfc_chainon_list (typelist, gfc_charlen_type_node);
>
> - if (typelist)
> - typelist = gfc_chainon_list (typelist, void_type_node);
> + typelist = gfc_chainon_list (typelist, void_type_node);
>
> if (alternate_return)
> type = integer_type_node;
That looks correct to me.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-03 23:17 ` [Bug fortran/40949] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 8:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-08-04 17:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 22:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-04 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 17:36 -------
Subject: Bug 40949
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Aug 4 17:35:59 2009
New Revision: 150465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=150465
Log:
2009-08-04 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR fortran/40949
* trans-types.c (gfc_get_function_type): Fix typelist of
functions without argument.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-04 17:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-04 22:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-05 20:47 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-04 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 22:36 -------
FIXED on the trunk.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-04 22:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-05 20:47 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-05 20:51 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-05 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 20:47 -------
Subject: Bug 40949
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Aug 5 20:47:19 2009
New Revision: 150500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=150500
Log:
2009-08-05 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR fortran/40969
Revert:
2009-08-04 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR fortran/40949
* trans-types.c (gfc_get_function_type): Fix typelist of
functions without argument.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-05 20:47 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-05 20:51 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-12 1:42 ` bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-05 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 20:51 -------
Patch broke IA64 and was reverted (cf. 40969). Proper fix is PR 40976 which
should solve several of the remaining LTO problems as well.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-05 20:51 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-12 1:42 ` bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-06 21:20 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-07 8:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: bje at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-12 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-12 01:42 -------
Confirmed, given that a test case is failing.
--
bje 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 |2009-08-12 01:42:07
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-12 1:42 ` bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-06 21:20 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-07 8:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-06 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:20 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Patch broke IA64 and was reverted (cf. 40969). Proper fix is PR 40976 which
> should solve several of the remaining LTO problems as well.
With the above statement, is this PR still needed? Can it be closed?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/40949] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90
2009-08-03 13:55 [Bug fortran/40949] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_7.f90 rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-06 21:20 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-07 8:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-07 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 08:43 -------
The problem has been fixed on the LTO side. The Frontend issues remain but
are tracked in PR40976.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40949
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread