Hi Mikael,

thanks for looking at the patch. Please note, that Paul has sent an addendum to
the patches for 60322, which I deliberately have attached.

>  26/02/2015 18:17, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
> > This first patch is only preparatory and does not change any of the
> > semantics of gfortran at all.
> Sure?

With the counterexample you found below, this of course is a wrong statement.
 
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> > index ab6f7a5..d28cf77 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> > @@ -4059,10 +4060,10 @@ gfc_lval_expr_from_sym (gfc_symbol *sym)
> >    lval->symtree = gfc_find_symtree (sym->ns->sym_root, sym->name);
> >  
> >    /* It will always be a full array.  */
> > -  lval->rank = sym->as ? sym->as->rank : 0;
> > +  as = sym->as;
> > +  lval->rank = as ? as->rank : 0;
> >    if (lval->rank)
> > -    gfc_add_full_array_ref (lval, sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS ?
> > -			    CLASS_DATA (sym)->as : sym->as);
> > +    gfc_add_full_array_ref (lval, as);
> 
> This is a change of semantics.  Or do you know that sym->ts.type !=
> BT_CLASS?

You are completely right. I have made a mistake here. I have to tell the truth,
I never ran a regtest with only part 1 of the patches applied. The second part
of the patch will correct this, by setting the variable as depending on whether
type == BT_CLASS or not. Sorry for the mistake.

> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
> > index 3664824..e571a17 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
> > @@ -1013,16 +1017,24 @@ gfc_build_dummy_array_decl (gfc_symbol * sym, tree
> > dummy) tree decl;
> >    tree type;
> >    gfc_array_spec *as;
> > +  symbol_attribute *array_attr;
> >    char *name;
> >    gfc_packed packed;
> >    int n;
> >    bool known_size;
> >  
> > -  if (sym->attr.pointer || sym->attr.allocatable
> > -      || (sym->as && sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_RANK))
> > +  /* Use the array as and attr.  */
> > +  as = sym->as;
> > +  array_attr = &sym->attr;
> > +
> > +  /* The pointer attribute is always set on a _data component, therefore
> > check
> > +     the sym's attribute only.  */
> > +  if (sym->attr.pointer || array_attr->allocatable
> > +      || (as && as->type == AS_ASSUMED_RANK))
> >      return dummy;
> >  
> Any reason to sometimes use array_attr, sometimes not, like here?
> By the way, the comment is misleading: for classes, there is the
> class_pointer attribute (and it is a pain, I know).

Yes, and a good one. Array_attr is sometimes sym->attr and sometimes
CLASS_DATA(sym)->attr aka sym->ts.u.derived->components->attr. In the later
case .pointer is always set to 1 in the _data component's attr. I.e., the above
if, would always yield true for a class_array, which is not intended, but rather
destructive. I know about the class_pointer attribute, but I figured, that it
is not relevant here. Any idea how to formulate the comment better, to reflect
what I just explained?

Regards,
	Andre
-- 
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de