* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
@ 2008-02-14 23:47 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-15 0:03 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-14 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 23:46 -------
I think this is a defect in the standard; it should not be possible to combine
VALUE with OPTIONAL; currently all my compilers fail like gfortran.
At the moment I do not see how one could implement this if WG5 insists that
this is valid - except of passing a hidden argument.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2008-02-14 23:47 ` [Bug fortran/35203] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-15 0:03 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-15 1:04 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-15 0:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 00:03 -------
I now checked the F2003 standard + the two corrigenda and it misses this
clause. For TYPE such clauses were added in a corrigendum.
As you are a J3 member, can you create an interpretation request?
By the way, the right place for this edit would be the following:
C527 (R501) If the VALUE attribute is specified, the PARAMETER, EXTERNAL,
POINTER, ALLOCATABLE, DIMENSION, VOLATILE, INTENT(INOUT), or
INTENT(OUT) attribute shall not be specified.
One only needs to insert a "OPTIONAL, ". I think it is obvious why it should be
invalid, isn't it?
For gfortran I would recommend:
Index: symbol.c
===================================================================
--- symbol.c (revision 132324)
+++ symbol.c (working copy)
@@ -519,6 +519,7 @@
conf (value, pointer)
conf (value, allocatable)
+ conf (value, optional)
conf (value, subroutine)
conf (value, function)
conf (value, volatile_)
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2008-02-14 23:47 ` [Bug fortran/35203] " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-15 0:03 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-15 1:04 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2008-02-15 1:07 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl @ 2008-02-15 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2008-02-15 01:04 -------
> At the moment I do not see how one could implement this if WG5 insists that
> this is valid - except of passing a hidden argument.
As I am at a WG5 just right now, I decided to ask. Allowing OPTIONAL,VALUE was
a conscious decision by the Committee (although not necessarily an unanimous
one :-)
--
toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-02-15 01:04:01
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-15 1:04 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
@ 2008-02-15 1:07 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2008-02-15 6:12 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl @ 2008-02-15 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|2008-02-15 01:04:01 |2008-02-15 01:06:23
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-15 1:07 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
@ 2008-02-15 6:12 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-15 6:36 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-15 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 06:11 -------
Try this, seems to work, though I have not regression tested.
Index: trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- trans-expr.c (revision 132313)
+++ trans-expr.c (working copy)
@@ -139,8 +139,13 @@ gfc_conv_expr_present (gfc_symbol * sym)
|| GFC_ARRAY_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl)));
decl = GFC_DECL_SAVED_DESCRIPTOR (decl);
}
- return build2 (NE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, decl,
- fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (decl), null_pointer_node));
+
+ if (sym->attr.value)
+ return build2 (NE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, build_fold_addr_expr (decl),
+ fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (decl), null_pointer_node));
+ else
+ return build2 (NE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, decl,
+ fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (decl), null_pointer_node));
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-15 6:12 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-15 6:36 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-15 7:18 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-15 6:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 06:35 -------
Scratch the patch in comment #4. When the argument is passed by value and is
missing the call looks like:
aap(0b)
So I was thinking we could build:
if (&n != 0b)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-15 6:36 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-15 7:18 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-15 18:15 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-15 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 07:17 -------
> As I am at a WG5 just right now, I decided to ask. Allowing OPTIONAL,VALUE
> was a conscious decision by the Committee (although not necessarily an
> unanimous one :-)
Can you ask the other vendors how they plan to implement it? Or if you find a
non-vendor proponent, how he would implement it.
For a pointer (C sense) it is easy:
if (pointer == NULL) -> check for presence
if (*pointer == 0) -> check for its value
But if I have a value, there is no chance to check for it directly - except for
passing a hidden argument; unless we can convince J3/WG5 to change their
opinion, that is what I propose to do. The hidden argument would then be added
after the character length arguments.
As written, I checked all my compilers and all get a wrong result
- gfortran, g95, NAG f95: NOT PRESENT
- ifort: PRESENT, WITH VALUE: 0 (even if not present)
(ifort 10 and ifort 10.1 print a warning that present should not be used with
value; ifort 9 give the same run-time result, but does not have the warning)
- sunf95: Compile-time error: OPTIONAL and VALUE may not be used both
(While we are at it: Please make sure that OPTION + VALUE + BIND(C) will not be
allowed in the upcoming interoperability TR; if it is included, there should be
a note giving implementation suggestions. F2003 is unaffected by this as
OPTIONAL is not allowed with BIND(C).)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-15 7:18 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-15 18:15 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2008-02-15 20:05 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl @ 2008-02-15 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2008-02-15 18:15 -------
> As written, I checked all my compilers and all get a wrong result
> - gfortran, g95, NAG f95: NOT PRESENT
> - ifort: PRESENT, WITH VALUE: 0 (even if not present)
> (ifort 10 and ifort 10.1 print a warning that present should not be used with
> value; ifort 9 give the same run-time result, but does not have the warning)
> - sunf95: Compile-time error: OPTIONAL and VALUE may not be used both
I just asked Bill Long of Cray (who heads the subgroup that covers this) to try
it on Cray's compiler - it ICE'd with a message that clearly showed that it
didn't expect to be handed an OPTIONAL, VALUE argument (without flagging it as
a not-legal construct, though).
I'm closing the PR as "WONTFIX".
> (While we are at it: Please make sure that OPTION + VALUE + BIND(C) will not be
> allowed in the upcoming interoperability TR; if it is included, there should be
> a note giving implementation suggestions. F2003 is unaffected by this as
> OPTIONAL is not allowed with BIND(C).)
You bet. There was a heated discussion on this yesterday, which didn't result
in any progress. Bill will send out an e-mail with the issues.
--
toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-15 18:15 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
@ 2008-02-15 20:05 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-18 8:32 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2008-03-26 21:10 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-15 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 20:04 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> I just asked Bill Long of Cray (who heads the subgroup that covers this) to
> try it on Cray's compiler - it ICE'd with a message that clearly showed that
> it didn't expect to be handed an OPTIONAL, VALUE argument (without flagging it
> as a not-legal construct, though).
What will happen now? Will anyone send an interpretation request, which will
bring it up on the table again?
> > (While we are at it: Please make sure that OPTION + VALUE + BIND(C) will
> > not beallowed in the upcoming interoperability TR
>
> You bet. There was a heated discussion on this yesterday, which didn't result
> in any progress. Bill will send out an e-mail with the issues.
Thanks - as the TR has not been published yet, it should be easier to fix that
the standard.
I intent to submit the following patch:
--- symbol.c (revision 132332)
+++ symbol.c (working copy)
@@ -535,2 +535,14 @@ check_conflict (symbol_attribute *attr,
+ if (attr->value && attr->optional)
+ {
+ if (name == NULL)
+ gfc_error ("GNU Fortran does not support dummy argument at %L with "
+ "both VALUE and OPTIONAL attribute", where);
+ else
+ gfc_error ("GNU Fortran does not support dummy argument '%s' at %L "
+ "with both VALUE and OPTIONAL attribute", name, where);
+
+ return FAILURE;
+ }
+
conf (protected, intrinsic)
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-15 20:05 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-18 8:32 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2008-03-26 21:10 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl @ 2008-02-18 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2008-02-18 08:32 -------
> What will happen now? Will anyone send an interpretation request, which will
> bring it up on the table again?
No, as it isn't *impossible* to implement it (with a hidden argument), an
interp won't stand a chance.
> I intent to submit the following patch:
Yep, it's *much* better to say outright that we do not support it. We will
hear from people who actually need it :-)
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35203] OPTIONAL, VALUE actual argument cannot be an INTEGER 0
2008-02-14 23:05 [Bug fortran/35203] New: " toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-18 8:32 ` toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
@ 2008-03-26 21:10 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-26 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 21:09 -------
A lovely design by committee feature that is.
An alternative implementation strategy would be to use the same calling
convention as for pass-by-reference arguments and then copy on entry (if
present, and as an optimization, only if it is indeed written to in the
procedure body).
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread