[Bug fortran/100910] New: Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[Bug fortran/100910] New: Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910

            Bug ID: 100910
           Summary: Bind(c): errors handling long double complex
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 50935
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50935&action=edit
Fortran code showing problem

Hi All!

Errors handling kind due to kind not being realted to elem_len.

Seen on:

GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.3.1 20210526
GNU Fortran (GCC) 11.1.1 20210526
GNU Fortran (GCC) 12.0.0 20210529 (experimental)

Thank you very much.

Best regards.
José Rui

[Bug fortran/100910] Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910

--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa <jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 50936
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50936&action=edit
C code for bind(c)

[Bug fortran/100910] Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-06-05
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
On my system I get

% gfc pr100910.f90 pr100910.c
pr100910.c: In function 'c_vrfy_long_double_complex':
c_vrfy_long_double_complex':
pr100910.c:49:43: warning: implicit declaration of function 'CMPLX'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
   49 |     if ((cabsl (*ip-(long double complex)(CMPLX((double)(i+1),
(double)(2*(i+1)))))>(long double)0.0))
      |                                           ^~~~~
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
  "_CMPLX", referenced from:
      _c_vrfy_long_double_complex in ccyI5oZ3.o
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

[Bug fortran/100910] Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910

--- Comment #3 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa <jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
AFAIK the "CMPLX" macros are part of C11 and should be defined in the standard
header "complex.h"...

Since there are no complains about the header, maybe just adding the definition
of the macro will do the trick...

#define CMPLXL(x, y) ((long double complex)((long double)(x) + I * (long
double)(y)))

I will attach an altered file.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
José Rui

[Bug fortran/100910] Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910

--- Comment #4 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa <jrfsousa at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 50955
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50955&action=edit
Missing macros

[Bug fortran/100910] Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW

[Bug fortran/100910] Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

[sandra at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910

sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is fixed now.  There is adequate test coverage in the c-interop testsuite;
typecodes-array-longdouble.f90 and typecodes-scalar-longdouble.f90.