public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "aldot at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/102973] New: possible inconsistency in procptr_assignment handling when matching ASSOCIATE Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:43:33 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-102973-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102973 Bug ID: 102973 Summary: possible inconsistency in procptr_assignment handling when matching ASSOCIATE Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: aldot at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2018-September/050809.html i spotted one (pre-existing) possible inconsistency that i did overlook back then: gfc_match_associate () reads ... if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES) { /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors. */ gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1; if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES) { gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C"); goto assocListError; } gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0; } i.e. we retry a match, but in the second attempt we turn on procptr assignment matching and if that works, we turn procptr assignment matching off again. But if we fail that retry, we forget to turn it off again. I suppose we should: $ svn diff -x -p gcc/fortran/match.c Index: gcc/fortran/match.c =================================================================== --- gcc/fortran/match.c (revision 264040) +++ gcc/fortran/match.c (working copy) @@ -1898,13 +1898,16 @@ gfc_match_associate (void) if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES) { /* Have another go, allowing for procedure pointer selectors. */ + match m; + gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1; - if (gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target) != MATCH_YES) + m = gfc_match (" %e", &newAssoc->target); + gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0; + if (m != MATCH_YES) { gfc_error ("Invalid association target at %C"); goto assocListError; } - gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0; } newAssoc->where = gfc_current_locus; Untested. Maybe someone wants to give it a whirl... If it wrecks havoc then leaving it set deliberately deserves at least a comment. PS: It would be nice to get rid of gfc_matching_procptr_assignment, gfc_matching_ptr_assignment, gfc_matching_prefix, FWIW.
next reply other threads:[~2021-10-27 20:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-10-27 20:43 aldot at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-10-28 19:55 ` [Bug fortran/102973] " anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-01 14:26 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-102973-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).