Re: patch, fortan] PR83113 Bogus "duplicate allocatable attribute" error for submodule character function

[Andrew Benson <abenson@carnegiescience.edu>]

*ping*

On Friday, January 31, 2020 5:06:49 PM PST Andrew Benson wrote:
> I've attached on updated patch for PR83113. The now removes the ICE when a
> duplicate DIMENSION attribute is specified in a submodule function.  The
> patch reg tests cleanly.
> 
> OK to commit?
> 
> Note that this patch doesn't check that the attributes of duplicate
> declarations in a submodule function are valid or consistent with those
> declared in the module. For example both:
> 
> module mm
>   implicit none
>   interface
>      module function c()
>        integer, dimension(2)  :: c !! Dimension 2 here
>      end function c
>   end interface
> end module mm
> 
> submodule (mm) oo
>   implicit none
> contains
>   module function c()
>     integer, dimension(3)  :: c  !! Inconsistent dimension 3 here
>   end function c
> end submodule oo
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> module mm
>   implicit none
>   interface
>      module function c()
>        integer, dimension(2)  :: c !! Dimension 2 here
>      end function c
>   end interface
> end module mm
> 
> submodule (mm) oo
>   implicit none
> contains
>   module function c()
>     integer, dimension(:)  :: c !! Invalid cannot have a deferred shape
>   end function c
> end submodule oo
> 
> 
> compile successfully, but should be rejected. Presumably we should add some
> check that the attributes of the declaration in the submodule match those in
> the module?
> 
> If so, I can go ahead and open a PR for this problem.
> 
> -Andrew
> 
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 10:54:24 AM PST Andrew Benson wrote:
> > Below is a partial patch for PR 83113
> > 
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83113
> > 
> > It simply circumvents the check for duplicate attributes when looking at
> > declarations in a module procedure during compilation of a submodule.
> > 
> > As it stands, the patch handles the cases of "allocatable", "dimension",
> > and "pointer" attributes (corresponding to the two test cases in the PR
> > plus a case that showed up in my own code). There are other attributes
> > which should be handled similarly but before I make those changes I
> > wanted to seek some opinions on whether this is the correct/best way to
> > fix this issue.
> > 
> > The patch regression tests cleanly - however,  while the patch solves the
> > "duplicate attribute" problem for the test case in comment #4:
> > 
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83113#c4
> > 
> > that test case then ICEs with:
> > 
> > $ gfortran -c pr83113_2.F90 -o pr83113_2.o
> > f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_set_array_spec, at
> > fortran/array.c:879 0x5fd22f gfc_set_array_spec(gfc_symbol*,
> > gfc_array_spec*, locus*)
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/array.c:879
> > 
> > 0x7e868e build_sym
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/decl.c:1670
> > 
> > 0x7f0ada variable_decl
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/decl.c:2760
> > 
> > 0x7f0ada gfc_match_data_decl()
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/decl.c:6120
> > 
> > 0x85b66d match_word
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:65
> > 
> > 0x85b66d decode_statement
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:376
> > 
> > 0x861094 next_free
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:1279
> > 
> > 0x861094 next_statement
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:1511
> > 
> > 0x8638ac parse_spec
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:3738
> > 
> > 0x86591c parse_progunit
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:5851
> > 
> > 0x865df9 parse_contained
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:5752
> > 
> > 0x866b5e parse_module
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:6124
> > 
> > 0x86709c gfc_parse_file()
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/parse.c:6427
> > 
> > 0x8b756f gfc_be_parse_file
> > 
> >         ../../gcc-git/gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:210
> > 
> > Please submit a full bug report,
> > with preprocessed source if appropriate.
> > Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
> > See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
> > 
> > 
> > This looks like a separate problem to me, but looking quickly at where the
> > ICE occurs it seems to be related to coarrays of which my understanding is
> > very limited - so any insights on this would be welcome.
> > 
> > Patch is appended below.
> > 
> > -Andrew


-- 

* Andrew Benson: http://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/abenson/contact.html

* Galacticus: https://github.com/galacticusorg/galacticus