public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function
@ 2021-01-29 13:34 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-29 13:42 ` [Bug fortran/98890] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-29 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
Bug ID: 98890
Summary: ICE on reference to module function
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
gfortran ICEs on the following testcase:
module foo
contains
real function bar(x)
real :: x(2,2)
bar=baz*x(1,1)
end function bar
real function baz(x)
real :: x(2,2)
baz=x(1,1)
end function baz
end module foo
Doesn't say anything even with implicit none, so maybe it is ok that baz lookup
gives the module function rather than a local variable, but shouldn't something
complain that it refers to the module function in an invalid way (rather than
say calling it)? Originally this was reported due to a typo (the baz* should
have been bar* ).
If baz returns some incompatible type such as integer, then an error is
diagnosed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/98890] ICE on reference to module function
2021-01-29 13:34 [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-29 13:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-04 11:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-29 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Seems the ICE is quite long, seems before around (+- 25 revisions) r137400
gfortran ICEd in the FE:
internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_variable, at fortran/trans-expr.c:483
and after that it ICEs in gimple verification, as the multiplication has
operand with invalid type.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/98890] ICE on reference to module function
2021-01-29 13:34 [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-29 13:42 ` [Bug fortran/98890] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-04 11:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-02-05 11:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2021-02-04 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2021-02-04
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
With --enable-checking=yes I get
pr98890.f90:3:19:
3 | real function bar(x)
| ^
Error: type mismatch in binary expression
real(kind=4)
real(kind=4)
real(kind=4) (*<T5e4>) (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict)
_2 = _1 * baz;
pr98890.f90:3:19: internal compiler error: 'verify_gimple' failed
With --enable-checking=release and GCC8 to 11, I get
5 | bar=baz*x(1,1)
| ^
internal compiler error: in convert_mode_scalar, at expr.c:314
For GCC7 I get
internal compiler error: in convert_move, at expr.c:229
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/98890] ICE on reference to module function
2021-01-29 13:34 [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-29 13:42 ` [Bug fortran/98890] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-04 11:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2021-02-05 11:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 16:10 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-05 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords| |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Likewise for the following, which uses an assignment:
implicit none
contains
real function bar(x)
real :: x(2,2)
bar = bar ! OK
bar = baz ! ERROR: function name not reference
bar = get_funptr() ! ERROR: proc-pointer returning function
bar = bar * x(1,1) ! OK
bar = baz * x(1,1) ! error - as above but as operator
bar = get_funptr() * x(1,1) ! likewise
end function bar
function get_funptr() result(ptr)
procedure(bar), pointer :: ptr
ptr => bar
end
real function baz(x) result(bazr)
real :: x(2,2)
bazr=x(1,1)
end function baz
end module foo
* * *
I am not sure whether the problem is that expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE instead of
expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
or whether the proper fix should be inside both resolve_ordinary_assign() and
resolve_operator() a check like:
symbol_attribute rhs_attr = gfc_expr_attr (rhs);
if (rhs_attr.function && ...)
{
gfc_error ("Unexpected function name at %L", &rhs->where);
return false;
}
if (rhs_attr.proc_pointer)
{
gfc_error ("Unexpected procedure pointer at %L", &rhs->where);
return false;
}
where "..." detects that the rhs may be used as result name in this context.
This check always confuses me. And a quick try failed:
I tried rhs_attr – but it is identical for 'bar' and baz'; and also
'sym->result = sym' is the same (if changing 'baz' to use no result variable).
I also thought about the namespace but thanks to BLOCK and contained procedures
(which may access their parent's result variable) it is not that simple.
* * *
I have not checked but, e.g., for 'call foo(baz)' a similar issue may pop up. I
think not occurring, but to check: proc_pointer_comp (should be resolved
already at parse time?) and derived-type procedures returning proc pointers
(same check as for other functions).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/98890] ICE on reference to module function
2021-01-29 13:34 [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-05 11:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-19 16:10 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 16:47 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 17:22 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-19 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Related issue but without an ICE:
contains
integer function f1()
!f2 = 1 ! gives an error as expected
j = f2 ! <<<< accepted; cast of function addr to integer(kind=4)
f1 = 1 ! ↑ ifort: 'already been used as an external function name'
end function
integer function f2()
f2=1
end function
end
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/98890] ICE on reference to module function
2021-01-29 13:34 [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-19 16:10 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-19 16:47 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 17:22 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-19 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> Related issue but without an ICE:
>
> contains
> integer function f1()
> !f2 = 1 ! gives an error as expected
> j = f2 ! <<<< accepted; cast of function addr to integer(kind=4)
> f1 = 1 ! ↑ ifort: 'already been used as an external function name'
> end function
> integer function f2()
> f2=1
> end function
> end
A variation with a question:
program p1
implicit none
integer j, k
j = 99
k = f1()
print *, j, k
contains
integer function f1()
!f2 = 1
j = f2 ! Should this be warned or rejected?
print *, j
f1 = 1 ! This should not be rejected
end function
integer function f2()
f2=1
end function
end
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/98890] ICE on reference to module function
2021-01-29 13:34 [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-19 16:47 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-19 17:22 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-19 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98890
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I should have noted in the above case, if we remove the parens on line 5,
k = f1 is rejected.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-19 17:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-29 13:34 [Bug fortran/98890] New: ICE on reference to module function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-29 13:42 ` [Bug fortran/98890] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-04 11:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-02-05 11:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 16:10 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 16:47 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-19 17:22 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
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).