[PATCH] Fix gfc_trans_pointer_assign_need_temp (PR fortran/49698)

[PATCH] Fix gfc_trans_pointer_assign_need_temp (PR fortran/49698)

[Jakub Jelinek]

Hi!

As the attached testcase (on x86-64) shows, inner_size is initialized to
1 of a wrong type, which results in verify_stmt ICEs because a PLUS has
one 64-bit and one 32-bit operand.

Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
Ok for trunk/4.6?

2011-07-11  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR fortran/49698
	* trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_pointer_assign_need_temp): Initialize
	inner_size to gfc_index_one_node instead of integer_one_node.

	* gfortran.dg/pr49698.f90: New test.

--- gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c.jj	2011-07-07 13:23:57.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c	2011-07-11 10:53:34.000000000 +0200
@@ -3323,7 +3323,7 @@ gfc_trans_pointer_assign_need_temp (gfc_
   count = gfc_create_var (gfc_array_index_type, "count");
   gfc_add_modify (block, count, gfc_index_zero_node);
 
-  inner_size = integer_one_node;
+  inner_size = gfc_index_one_node;
   lss = gfc_walk_expr (expr1);
   rss = gfc_walk_expr (expr2);
   if (lss == gfc_ss_terminator)
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr49698.f90.jj	2011-07-11 11:32:01.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr49698.f90	2011-07-11 11:21:53.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+! PR fortran/49698
+! { dg-do compile }
+subroutine foo (x, y, z)
+  type S
+    integer, pointer :: e => null()
+  end type S
+  type T
+    type(S), dimension(:), allocatable :: a
+  end type T
+  type(T) :: x, y
+  integer :: z, i
+  forall (i = 1 : z)
+    y%a(i)%e => x%a(i)%e
+  end forall
+end subroutine foo

	Jakub

Re: [PATCH] Fix gfc_trans_pointer_assign_need_temp (PR fortran/49698)

[Tobias Burnus]

On 07/11/2011 06:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> As the attached testcase (on x86-64) shows, inner_size is initialized to
> 1 of a wrong type, which results in verify_stmt ICEs because a PLUS has
> one 64-bit and one 32-bit operand.
>
> Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
> Ok for trunk/4.6?

OK. I would even claim the patch is obvious.

Thanks for taking care of this PR.

Tobias