* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
@ 2011-04-20 12:07 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-04-20 13:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it @ 2011-04-20 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #1 from Salvatore Filippone <sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it> 2011-04-20 12:07:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 24057
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24057
test-case
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-04-20 12:07 ` [Bug fortran/48699] " sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
@ 2011-04-20 13:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-20 13:21 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (21 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-04-20 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-20 13:08:39 UTC ---
See also PR 48700 (memleak with polymorphic vars in MOVE_ALLOC), which might be
a duplicate.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-04-20 12:07 ` [Bug fortran/48699] " sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-04-20 13:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-04-20 13:21 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-05-15 12:00 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it @ 2011-04-20 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #3 from Salvatore Filippone <sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it> 2011-04-20 13:20:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> See also PR 48700 (memleak with polymorphic vars in MOVE_ALLOC), which might be
> a duplicate.
They are related in the sense that the test cases for this one were obtained
while searching for a memleak test case. Whether the root cause is the same is
beyond me..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-20 13:21 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
@ 2011-05-15 12:00 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-15 12:16 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-15 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011.05.15 11:47:17
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-15 11:47:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> [sfilippo@donald bug31]$ gfortran -c testmv2.f90
> testmv2.f90:38.20:
>
> call move_alloc(sm,dat%sm)
> 1
> Error: 'from' argument of 'move_alloc' intrinsic at (1) must be ALLOCATABLE
Here is a reduced test case for this one:
program testmv2
type bar
integer, allocatable :: ia(:), ja(:)
end type bar
class(bar), allocatable :: sm,sm2
allocate(sm2)
select type(sm2)
type is (bar)
call move_alloc(sm2,sm)
end select
end program testmv2
In each TYPE IS/CLASS IS block we generate a temporary for the selector.
Apparently we need to set the correct attributes for the temporary.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-15 12:00 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-15 12:16 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-20 20:34 ` [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-15 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-15 11:53:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> In each TYPE IS/CLASS IS block we generate a temporary for the selector.
> Apparently we need to set the correct attributes for the temporary.
cf. select_type_set_tmp (match.c)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-15 12:16 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-20 20:34 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-20 21:47 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-20 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-20 20:17:21 UTC ---
Patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/match.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/match.c (Revision 173965)
+++ gcc/fortran/match.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -4533,7 +4533,11 @@ select_type_set_tmp (gfc_typespec *ts)
gfc_get_sym_tree (name, gfc_current_ns, &tmp, false);
gfc_add_type (tmp->n.sym, ts, NULL);
gfc_set_sym_referenced (tmp->n.sym);
- gfc_add_pointer (&tmp->n.sym->attr, NULL);
+ if (select_type_stack->selector->ts.type == BT_CLASS &&
+ CLASS_DATA (select_type_stack->selector)->attr.allocatable)
+ gfc_add_allocatable (&tmp->n.sym->attr, NULL);
+ else
+ gfc_add_pointer (&tmp->n.sym->attr, NULL);
gfc_add_flavor (&tmp->n.sym->attr, FL_VARIABLE, name, NULL);
if (ts->type == BT_CLASS)
gfc_build_class_symbol (&tmp->n.sym->ts, &tmp->n.sym->attr,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-20 20:34 ` [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-20 21:47 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-21 19:35 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-20 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-20 21:31:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Patch:
... regtests cleanly.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-20 21:47 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-21 19:35 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-21 19:51 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-21 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-21 19:12:56 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat May 21 19:12:51 2011
New Revision: 174001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174001
Log:
2011-05-21 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/48699
* match.c (select_type_set_tmp): Make the temporary ALLOCATABLE if the
selector is ALLOCATABLE.
2011-05-21 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/48699
* gfortran.dg/select_type_23.f03: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/select_type_23.f03
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/match.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-21 19:35 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-21 19:51 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-21 20:02 ` [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] " janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-21 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-21 19:33:32 UTC ---
r174001 fixes the test cases in comment #1 and #4.
The test case in comment #0 still fails. Reduced version:
program testmv1
type bar
end type
type, extends(bar) :: bar2
end type
class(bar), allocatable :: sm
type(bar2), allocatable :: sm2
allocate(sm2)
call move_alloc(sm2,sm)
end program
/tmp/ccSfRlZ5.o:(.data+0x38): undefined reference to `__copy_testmv1_Bar2.1582'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-21 19:51 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-21 20:02 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-21 20:57 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-21 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside |[4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP]
|SELECT TYPE |MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT
| |TYPE
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-21 19:37:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> program testmv1
>
> type bar
> end type
>
> type, extends(bar) :: bar2
> end type
>
> class(bar), allocatable :: sm
> type(bar2), allocatable :: sm2
>
> allocate(sm2)
> call move_alloc(sm2,sm)
>
> end program
>
>
> /tmp/ccSfRlZ5.o:(.data+0x38): undefined reference to `__copy_testmv1_Bar2.1582'
Btw, this one works with 4.5, but fails with 4.6 and 4.7, which makes it a
regresssion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-21 20:02 ` [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] " janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-21 20:57 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-22 0:12 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (12 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-21 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-21 20:09:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> program testmv1
>
> type bar
> end type
>
> type, extends(bar) :: bar2
> end type
>
> class(bar), allocatable :: sm
> type(bar2), allocatable :: sm2
>
> allocate(sm2)
> call move_alloc(sm2,sm)
>
> end program
>
>
> /tmp/ccSfRlZ5.o:(.data+0x38): undefined reference to `__copy_testmv1_Bar2.1582'
The problem here simply is that the vtab is constructed too late (only at
translation stage), so that the __copy routine is never generated. The
following obvious patch fixes it:
Index: gcc/fortran/check.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/check.c (Revision 174000)
+++ gcc/fortran/check.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -2588,6 +2588,10 @@ gfc_check_move_alloc (gfc_expr *from, gfc_expr *to
return FAILURE;
}
+ /* Make sure the vtab is present. */
+ if (to->ts.type == BT_CLASS)
+ gfc_find_derived_vtab (from->ts.u.derived);
+
return SUCCESS;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-21 20:57 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-22 0:12 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-05-29 22:20 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-05-22 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-05-21 23:32:58 UTC ---
The patch in comment #11 fixes the runtime for the tests in comments #0 and #9.
However the other tests give a backtrace on x86_64-apple-darwin10. and valgrind
reports errors of the kind
==27268== Invalid read of size 8
==27268== at 0x100000D48: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== Address 0x100442470 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 96 free'd
==27268== at 0x10001146F: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366)
==27268== by 0x100000D34: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268==
==27268== Invalid write of size 8
==27268== at 0x100000D69: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== Address 0x100442470 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 96 free'd
==27268== at 0x10001146F: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366)
==27268== by 0x100000D34: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268==
==27268== Invalid read of size 8
==27268== at 0x100000D77: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== Address 0x1004424a0 is 48 bytes inside a block of size 96 free'd
==27268== at 0x10001146F: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366)
==27268== by 0x100000D34: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268==
==27268== Invalid write of size 8
==27268== at 0x100000D9A: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== Address 0x1004424a0 is 48 bytes inside a block of size 96 free'd
==27268== at 0x10001146F: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366)
==27268== by 0x100000D34: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268==
==27268== Invalid free() / delete / delete[]
==27268== at 0x10001146F: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366)
==27268== by 0x100000DB0: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== Address 0x100442470 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 96 free'd
==27268== at 0x10001146F: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366)
==27268== by 0x100000D34: MAIN__ (pr48699_1.f90:16)
==27268== by 0x100000DE8: main (pr48699_1.f90:16)
for the test in comment #4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-22 0:12 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-05-29 22:20 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-30 5:34 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (10 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-29 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-29 21:51:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> The patch in comment #11 fixes the runtime for the tests in comments #0 and #9.
> However the other tests give a backtrace on x86_64-apple-darwin10. and valgrind
> reports errors of the kind
Apparently that already happens without the patch, with a clean trunk (note
that comment #4 is select_type_23.f03 in the test suite, but only
"do-compile").
Moreover, I think that this test case is in fact invalid, cf. PR 48887.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-29 22:20 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-30 5:34 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-05-30 9:13 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (9 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-05-30 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-05-29 22:19:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Moreover, I think that this test case is in fact invalid, cf. PR 48887.
I have only reported what I saw. My understanding of the standard past f77 is
too shallow to allow me to be confident about the validity or not of these
tests.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-30 5:34 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-05-30 9:13 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2011-05-30 9:29 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it @ 2011-05-30 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #15 from Salvatore Filippone <sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it> 2011-05-30 09:11:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
>
> Moreover, I think that this test case is in fact invalid, cf. PR 48887.
Hm.
I see; I wonder, is this something that was added in F2008 or was it present in
F2003?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-30 9:13 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
@ 2011-05-30 9:29 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-30 10:48 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-30 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-30 09:22:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Moreover, I think that this test case is in fact invalid, cf. PR 48887.
We are talking about comment 4, aren't we?
(That test case fails with ifort 12 as "sm2" is not allocatable. It (and the
one in PR 48887) compiles with crayftn, but I have not checked whether the
resulting code makes sense.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-30 9:29 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-30 10:48 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-12 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-30 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-30 09:35:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I see; I wonder, is this something that was added in F2008 or was it present in
> F2003?
If you talk about that associate-names don't inherit the allocate attribute
from the selector: That's not new. Cf. F2003, "16.4.1.5 Construct association"
and F2008, "16.5.1.6". A quote from the latter can be found in bug 48887
comment 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-30 10:48 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-06-12 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-17 20:03 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-06-12 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-12 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-06-17 20:03 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-19 21:07 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-06-17 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-17 20:03:07 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jun 17 20:03:04 2011
New Revision: 175151
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175151
Log:
2011-06-17 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/48699
* check.c (gfc_check_move_alloc): If 'TO' argument is polymorphic,
make sure the vtab is present.
2011-06-17 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/48699
* gfortran.dg/move_alloc_5.f90: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/move_alloc_5.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/check.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-17 20:03 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-06-19 21:07 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-19 21:20 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-06-19 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:05:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 19 21:05:18 2011
New Revision: 175194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=175194
Log:
2011-06-19 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/47601
* module.c (mio_component_ref): Handle components of extended types.
* symbol.c (gfc_find_component): Return if sym is NULL.
PR fortran/48699
* check.c (gfc_check_move_alloc): If 'TO' argument is polymorphic,
make sure the vtab is present.
PR fortran/49074
* interface.c (gfc_extend_assign): Propagate the locus from the
assignment to the type-bound procedure call.
PR fortran/49417
* module.c (mio_component): Make sure the 'class_ok' attribute is set
for use-associated CLASS components.
* parse.c (parse_derived): Check for 'class_ok' attribute.
* resolve.c (resolve_fl_derived): Ditto.
2011-06-19 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/47601
* gfortran.dg/extends_13.f03: New.
PR fortran/48699
* gfortran.dg/move_alloc_5.f90: New.
PR fortran/49074
* gfortran.dg/typebound_assignment_3.f03: New.
PR fortran/49417
* gfortran.dg/class_43.f03: New.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_43.f03
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/extends_13.f03
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/move_alloc_5.f90
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_assignment_3.f03
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/fortran/check.c
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/fortran/interface.c
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/fortran/module.c
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/fortran/parse.c
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-19 21:07 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-06-19 21:20 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-26 15:18 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-06-19 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:20:14 UTC ---
The regression has been fixed on trunk and 4.6. The remaining issue will be
tracked by PR 48887. Closing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-19 21:20 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-26 15:18 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-03 11:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-03 12:01 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-26 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-26 14:32:45 UTC ---
This comment is (just) for cross reference. The patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-11/msg00217.html
fixes some MOVE_ALLOC issues, including the following one.
Most of the examples in this PR are actually invalid as in MOVE_ALLOC either
both arguments shall be polymorphic or both nonpolymorphic.
For instance (comment 9):
> class(bar), allocatable :: sm
> type(bar2), allocatable :: sm2
> call move_alloc(sm2,sm)
wrongly mixes them.
But also (comment 4):
class(bar), allocatable :: sm,sm2
select type(sm2)
type is (bar)
call move_alloc(sm2,sm)
end select
where "sm2" is nonpolymorphic due to the TYPE IS: Fortran 2008, 8.1.9.2, states
that "within the block following a TYPE IS type guard statement, the
associating entity (16.5.5) is not polymorphic"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-26 15:18 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-03 11:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-03 12:01 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-03 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-03 11:33:42 UTC ---
Actually, my comment 21 was a bit premature: FROM type TO class is valid, only
FROM class TO type is invalid. Corrected at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-12/msg00006.html
However, the test case of comment 8 (select_type_23.f03) is invalid - but for
other reasons. Cf. PR 48887.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/48699] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC inside SELECT TYPE
2011-04-20 12:07 [Bug fortran/48699] New: [OOP] MOVE_ALLOC of polymorphic variables sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-03 11:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-03 12:01 ` sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it @ 2011-12-03 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #23 from Salvatore Filippone <sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it> 2011-12-03 12:00:43 UTC ---
Yes, TYPE FROM and polymorphic TO is exactly the typical usage I have (indeed,
it also was the original test case)
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread