[Bug fortran/42072] New: [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[Bug fortran/42072] New: [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

The following variant of proc_ptr_8.* fails at runtime:


! { dg-do run }
! { dg-additional-sources proc_ptr_8.c }

MODULE X

  USE ISO_C_BINDING
  INTERFACE
    INTEGER(KIND=C_INT) 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 setpointer(ptype)
if (ptype(3) /= 9) call abort()

contains

  subroutine setpointer (p)
    PROCEDURE(mytype), POINTER :: p
    CALL C_F_PROCPOINTER(funpointer,p)
  end subroutine

END

! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "X" } }


/* Used by proc_ptr_8.f90.
   PR fortran/32580.  */

int (*funpointer)(int);

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

void init()
{
 funpointer=f;
}


-- 
           Summary: [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-16 22:51 -------
Side-note on C_F_PROCPOINTER: The manual claims that ...

"Due to the currently lacking support of procedure pointers in GNU Fortran this
function is not fully operable."

... which is a dirty lie.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-16 22:55 -------
Proposed fix:

Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    (revision 154189)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    (working copy)
@@ -2645,6 +2645,12 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol *
            tmp = gfc_get_ppc_type (arg->next->expr->ref->u.c.component);
          else
            tmp = TREE_TYPE (arg->next->expr->symtree->n.sym->backend_decl);
+
+         if (arg->next->expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.proc_pointer
+             && arg->next->expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.dummy)
+           fptrse.expr = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (input_location,
+                                                      fptrse.expr);
+
          se->expr = fold_build2 (MODIFY_EXPR, tmp, fptrse.expr,
                                  fold_convert (tmp, cptrse.expr));


-- 

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|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-11-16 22:55:50
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-16 22:59 -------
call setpointer(ptype)
is being converted into:
  setpointer.1481 ();

So inside MAIN__ we have:
  static void setpointer (integer(kind=4) (*<T3af>) (integer(kind=4)));
  setpointer (&ptype);


That is wrong, unless I am missing a reference type somewhere.


Plus inside setpointer I think:
  p = (integer(kind=4) (*<T3af>) (integer(kind=4)) *) funpointer;

is incorrect, it should be:
*p = funpointer;


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|2009-11-16 22:55:50         |2009-11-16 22:59:51
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-16 23:00 -------
Wrong buttons :).


-- 

pinskia 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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-17 12:00 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> So inside MAIN__ we have:
>   static void setpointer (integer(kind=4) (*<T3af>) (integer(kind=4)));
>   setpointer (&ptype);
> 
> That is wrong, unless I am missing a reference type somewhere.

Yes, indeed the 'static' line is wrong. However, it does not seem to have any
consequences.


> Plus inside setpointer I think:
>   p = (integer(kind=4) (*<T3af>) (integer(kind=4)) *) funpointer;
> 
> is incorrect, it should be:
> *p = funpointer;

Right, this is corrected by my patch in comment #2. With that patch, the dump
shows:


setpointer (integer(kind=4) (*<T3d4>) (integer(kind=4)) * p)
{
  *p = (integer(kind=4) (*<T3d4>) (integer(kind=4))) funpointer;
}

MAIN__ ()
{
  extern void (*<T62>) (void) funpointer;
  integer(kind=4) (*<T3d4>) (integer(kind=4)) ptype;
  integer(kind=4) (*<T3d4>) (integer(kind=4)) ptype2;
  static void setpointer (integer(kind=4) (*<T3d4>) (integer(kind=4)));

Here the 'setpointer' routine is ok, but again the static declaration is wrong.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-18 13:25 -------
Subject: Bug 42072

Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 18 13:24:54 2009
New Revision: 154292

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154292
Log:
2009-11-18  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/42072
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Handle procedure pointer
        dummies which are passed to C_F_PROCPOINTER.


2009-11-18  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/42072
        * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_8.f90: Extended.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_8.f90


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-20 15:51 -------
The runtime problem and the obsolete comment in the manual are fixed now. So
the only issue left is the wrong static declaration reported in comment #3.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42072

[Bug fortran/42072] [F03] wrong-code with C_F_PROCPOINTER

[janus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-20 16:08 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> So the only issue left is the wrong static declaration reported in comment #3.

This is now PR 42122. Closing this one.


-- 

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=42072