* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-07-21 15:22 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-03-01 8:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2020-07-21 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2020-07-21
Priority|P3 |P4
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-07-21 15:22 ` [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2021-03-01 8:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-01 22:55 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-01 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Some bound issues were fixed with PR99043 – but my bet is that the BIND(C)
issues still exist. (→ testcase (C + Fortran) attached to this PR).
* * *
Additionally: PR 94020 (duplicate of this PR) with attachment 47960 seems to be
mostly fixed, however for the following case, the result is wrong.
if 'lb' (or second argument to 'foo') is >= 0, size2 == 0 – otherwise, size2 >
0'.
Expected:
same result as for PRODUCT(SHAPE(ARRAY,KIND))
(→ 16.9.179 SIZE (ARRAY [, DIM, KIND]))
That is:
lb = 5 → shape = [5 -1] → -5
lb = -12 → shape = [5 - 1] → -5
implicit none
integer :: A(5,5)
call foo(a,-12)
call foo(a,0)
call foo(a,5)
contains
subroutine foo(x,lb)
integer :: lb
integer :: x(5,lb:*)
print *, size2(x)
if (size2(x) /= -5) stop 1
end
integer function size2(y)
integer :: y(..)
size2 = size(y)
end
end
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-07-21 15:22 ` [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-03-01 8:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-01 22:55 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-08-22 19:53 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-01 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the remaining bind(c) problems are the same bug that is causing
failures in tests
interoperability/cf-out-descriptor-6.f90
interoperability/fc-descriptor-6.f90
interoperability/fc-out-descriptor-6.f90
interoperability/ff-descriptor-6.f90
intrinsics/size.f90
from the new TS29113 testsuite posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574115.html
TS29113 says:
(1) for an assumed-rank object that is associated with an
assumed-size array, the result has the value −1 if DIM is
present and equal to the rank of ARRAY
Also in the description of CFI_cdesc_t in section 8.3.3, it says
In a C descriptor of an assumed-size array, the extent member of the
last element of the dim member has the value −1.
Neither of these things appears to be happening.
This might also be related to PR 94289?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-01 22:55 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-08-22 19:53 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-06 11:56 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-08-22 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc (in libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c):
/* Assumed size arrays have gfc ubound == 0 and CFI extent = -1. */
if (n == GFC_DESCRIPTOR_RANK (s) - 1
&& GFC_DESCRIPTOR_LBOUND(s, n) == 1
&& GFC_DESCRIPTOR_UBOUND(s, n) == 0)
d->dim[n].extent = -1;
else
d->dim[n].extent = (CFI_index_t)GFC_DESCRIPTOR_UBOUND(s, n)
- (CFI_index_t)GFC_DESCRIPTOR_LBOUND(s, n) + 1;
The comment and test are only correct if the lower bound of the array dimension
either defaults to 1 or is explicitly specified as 1. It does appear that the
ubound == 0 part is true, but this means e.g. an array dimension specified as
-3:* is indistinguishable from -3:0.
I think this needs to be corrected at the point where the GFC descriptor is
created; perhaps set ubound = lbound - 1? Or also set lbound = 1 as the code
snippet above checks? Assumed-size arrays can't be pointers or allocatable so
their bounds don't need to be preserved across calls, but maybe GFC descriptors
are used for other purposes where it matters?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-08-22 19:53 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-06 11:56 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-27 12:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-06 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think my patch for moving the CFI<->GFC conversion to FE-generated code
partially helps,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578904.html
However, I still see the following issues:
integer :: y(-1:3,4,*)
call test(y, num=0)
->
subroutine test (x, num)
integer :: x(..), num
print *, shape(x)
print *, size (x); if (size (x) /= -20) print *, 'ERROR: 1'
5 4 -1
0
That's unrelated to BIND(C) as there is no BIND(C). The problem is in
gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c, where gfc_conv_intrinsic_shape has code for
AS_ASSUMED_RANK but gfc_conv_intrinsic_size does not.
→ Same result with BIND(C).
Likewise for:
print *, size (x, dim=3); if (size (x, dim=3) /= -1) print *, 'ERROR: 4'
which also shows 0 instead of -1. – Same, except that the by-dimension results
are not summed up.
* * *
5 4 -1
ERROR 65
Expected is: 5, 4, 1 – the problem is that the last dimension is -1:-1. Looks
as if
gfc_conv_intrinsic_shape misses a check whether the argument is
!attr.allocatable && !attr.pointer
with symbol_attribute attr = gfc_expr_attr (expr);
before assuming that the argument can be assumed size.
→ Same issue with BIND(C).
* * *
The following does not occur with BIND(C) - with my patch applied - but without
BIND(C):
ERROR: 25
5 4 -1
Another SHAPE issue. Issue: Last value should be '1' not '-1' as the argument
is:
allocate (B(-1:3,4,-1:-1))
The dump shows:
test (&b, &C.4394);
thus, the actual argument has the declared bounds – while in the callee is
should have '1' as lower bound.
I am not sure whether that's a caller or a callee problem. If handled in the
caller, the following needs to work:
subroutine bar(x)
integer, allocatable :: x(..)
print*, lbound(x) ! -> has allocated bounds
call test(x)
i.e. assumed-rank allocatable -> assumed-rank nonallocatable. In general, we
have code which generates a temporary descriptor, e.g. for 'call
test(b(:,:,:))'.
(With C binding, we generate code which sets lbound to 0 in the caller.)
→ gfc_conv_procedure_call for the call handling / gfc_conv_expr_descriptor for
the conversion. I wonder whether we need to set se->direct_byref = 0 in this
case.
Additionally failing:
5 4 -1
ERROR: 31
-1
ERROR 34
Same cause – just exposed via UBOUND() and UBOUND(…,dim=3). And also only
without BIND(C).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-06 11:56 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-27 12:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-12 2:57 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-27 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus <burnus@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
commit r12-3897-g00f6de9c69119594f7dad3bd525937c94c8200d0
Author: Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>
Date: Mon Sep 27 14:04:54 2021 +0200
Fortran: Fix assumed-size to assumed-rank passing [PR94070]
This code inlines the size0 and size1 libgfortran calls, the former is
still
used by libgfortan itself (and by old code). Besides permitting more
optimizations, it also permits to handle assumed-rank dummies better: If
the
dummy argument is a nonpointer/nonallocatable, an assumed-size actual arg
is
repesented by having ubound == -1 for the last dimension. However, for
allocatable/pointers, this value can also exist. Hence, the dummy arg attr
has to be honored.
For that reason, when calling an assumed-rank procedure with nonpointer,
nonallocatable dummy arguments, the bounds have to be updated to avoid
the case ubound == -1 for the last dimension.
PR fortran/94070
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* trans-array.c (gfc_tree_array_size): New function to
find size inline (whole array or one dimension).
(array_parameter_size): Use it, take stmt_block as arg.
(gfc_conv_array_parameter): Update call.
* trans-array.h (gfc_tree_array_size): Add prototype.
* trans-decl.c (gfor_fndecl_size0, gfor_fndecl_size1): Remove
these global vars.
(gfc_build_intrinsic_function_decls): Remove their initialization.
* trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Update
bounds of pointer/allocatable actual args to
nonallocatable/nonpointer
dummies to be one based.
* trans-intrinsic.c (gfc_conv_intrinsic_shape): Fix case for
assumed rank with allocatable/pointer dummy.
(gfc_conv_intrinsic_size): Update to use inline function.
* trans.h (gfor_fndecl_size0, gfor_fndecl_size1): Remove var decl.
libgfortran/ChangeLog:
* intrinsics/size.c (size0, size1): Comment that now not
used by newer compiler code.
libgomp/ChangeLog:
* testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/privatized-ref-2.f90: Update
expected dg-note output.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-out-descriptor-6.f90: Remove xfail.
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/size.f90: Remove xfail.
* gfortran.dg/intrinsic_size_3.f90: Update scan-tree-dump-times.
* gfortran.dg/transpose_optimization_2.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/size_optional_dim_1.f90: Add scan-tree-dump-not.
* gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_22.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_22_aux.c: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-27 12:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-12 2:57 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 2:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-12 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #11 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are still some bugs present with class arrays. E.g., this test case
ICEs:
module m
type :: t
integer :: id
real :: xyz(3)
end type
contains
subroutine testit2p(a)
class(t), pointer :: a(..)
print *, shape(a)
end subroutine
end module
SHAPE is implemented as a library call and it's trying to copy the pointer
array to a temporary instead of just dereferencing it. I'm looking at
replacing that logic to handle it inline same as LBOUND/UBOUND.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-12 2:57 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 2:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 18:03 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-09 23:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 2:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore <sandra@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1af78e731feb9327a17c99ebaa19a4cca1125caf
commit r12-4591-g1af78e731feb9327a17c99ebaa19a4cca1125caf
Author: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue Oct 19 21:11:15 2021 -0700
Fortran: Fixes and additional tests for shape/ubound/size [PR94070]
This patch reimplements the SHAPE intrinsic to be inlined similarly to
LBOUND and UBOUND, instead of as a library call, to avoid an
unnecessary array copy. Various bugs are also fixed.
gcc/fortran/
PR fortran/94070
* expr.c (gfc_simplify_expr): Handle GFC_ISYM_SHAPE along with
GFC_ISYM_LBOUND and GFC_ISYM_UBOUND.
* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_ss_startstride): Likewise.
(set_loop_bounds): Likewise.
* trans-intrinsic.c (gfc_trans_intrinsic_bound): Extend to
handle SHAPE. Correct logic for zero-size special cases and
detecting assumed-rank arrays associated with an assumed-size
argument.
(gfc_conv_intrinsic_shape): Deleted.
(gfc_conv_intrinsic_function): Handle GFC_ISYM_SHAPE like
GFC_ISYM_LBOUND and GFC_ISYM_UBOUND.
(gfc_add_intrinsic_ss_code): Likewise.
(gfc_walk_intrinsic_bound): Likewise.
gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/94070
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/shape-bindc.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/shape-poly.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/size-bindc.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/size-poly.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/ubound-bindc.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/c-interop/ubound-poly.f90: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 2:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 18:03 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-09 23:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #13 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I believe this issue is fixed now. The original test case at the top of the
issue has been committed (now named assumed_rank_22), and my last commit added
a set of tests for the thing that was still triggering the ICE plus some more
for bind(c).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND
[not found] <bug-94070-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 18:03 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-01-09 23:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-09 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread