From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17955 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2017 06:16:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16183 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jul 2017 06:16:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=tonight, posters, dear, opportunity X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-yb0-f174.google.com Received: from mail-yb0-f174.google.com (HELO mail-yb0-f174.google.com) (209.85.213.174) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:16:30 +0000 Received: by mail-yb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id e201so34883449ybb.1; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:16:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7RNHo4lWGJLQAJU4cZiaIuSahO9lufn0/Hr815rwFSM=; b=rVwYl3e0jw6zI3WZN1RAbJYABBCNouKwpHsJtW++V7T7Jb4S8/QfCgaIGp8XFO/mTi hdGV1UZ7pd0sTcM9SC7nuFeCzVDiV6okRr6h15dGCs+0pCgmCsE/jjsUHmglZLnWwrUr kxRU5K3yMigGqvtGcOf44bRs7f5nRFw9erP0V0KsLxjTypH2HhrT82IImHL91UlvuCyd d2utKARfMssdzlz8CpJJkGC1l5I+PNGtiMw2pAEtJW1c7W+PlX5ngvxElEwfTihZEOiH dcYSkV/ZU8jAQVbs6StqU6jask+tueDzi1gAwdHvfEiNgeyakB5U6z7Y6vMCVuzdpYBU RP3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1120c20tO7OW+fVmT1U46+Qt3satXNZuL8Qe3JtsHFkNUytteMMe PFwNp9gpo+xGKpoDlAmpabkDAhJ2Ag== X-Received: by 10.37.6.66 with SMTP id 63mr18627877ybg.106.1499753788792; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.203.200 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <36a479a8-e22b-f675-7f3d-b7324f872357@netcologne.de> From: Paul Richard Thomas Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR34640 - ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer To: Thomas Koenig Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches , Damian Rouson , "Bader, Reinhold" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00494.txt.bz2 Dear All, We are not quite there yet. Thanks to the posters to the thread on clf, I have now been convinced that ptr => der_type_array%comp must return an lbound=1 based descriptor, since the target is not a WHOLE ARRAY as defined in the standard. In addition, Dominique picked up a failing testcase with -m32 for which he provided a fix. I should re-re-re-submit tonight :-) Paul On 9 July 2017 at 22:27, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> Please find attached what I believe is the final version of the patch. > > > This is looking very good, this does work as advertised and has > all the corner cases coverd. > > I also regtested this on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. > >> I took the opportunity of the delay, while the bounds issue was being >> discussed on clf, to fix class pointer arrays. They now function >> correctly, as evidenced by pointer_array_8.f90. > > > Excellent! > >> A possible final tweak - as asked before, should I bump up the module >> version number? My inclination is to say that we should. > > > Because we are changing the array descriptor (and thus binary > compatibility), we have to change the library version in > libtool-version. Bumping the module version should be done, > too. > >> Bootstrapped and regtested on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk? > > > So, OK from my side, with a bump in library and module version. > > Maybe you could wait a couple of days before committing to give > others a chance to also test the patch. > > Thanks a lot for finally making gfortran F95-compliant! > > Regards > > Thomas > -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein