------- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-11-15 19:26 -------
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.4 Regression] data statement with nested type
constructors
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 07:04:42PM -0000, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-15 19:04
> -------
> When we simplify start[i], we turn that expression into a constant. Then I
> believe the traverse_data_var can no longer increment the index since we made
> it a constant. I don't think the start[i] expression should be used to
> increment the offset, but I think it is. I am wondering if we don't need a
> temporary expression to use for this to traverse for the offset. Still
> thinking
> ...
>
Changed the instrumentaion of the code a little. In the for-loop
of get_array_index, I added
printf("i = %d --> ", i);
gmp_printf ("start = %Zd ", e->value.integer);
gmp_printf ("lower = %Zd ", ar->as->lower[i]->value.integer);
gmp_printf ("upper = %Zd ", ar->as->upper[i]->value.integer);
gmp_printf ("offset= %Zd\n", *offset);
REMOVE:kargl[252] gfc4x -o z pr41807.f90 -fdump-tree-original
i = 0 --> start = 1 lower = 1 upper = 3 offset= 0
i = 0 --> start = 2 lower = 1 upper = 3 offset= 1
i = 0 --> start = 3 lower = 1 upper = 3 offset= 2
i = 0 --> start = 1 lower = 1 upper = 3 offset= 0
i = 0 --> start = 0 lower = 1 upper = 3 offset= -1
i = 0 --> start = 0 lower = 1 upper = 3 offset= -1
The first 3 lines are from
data (z(i), i = 1, n) / 1, 2, 3/
with z integer. The next 3 are from the array of derived type b.
So, you appear to be on the right track. The start value appears
to be junk. What's disconcerting is that the dump shows (with
the check for /*|| (gfc_is_constant_expr (e) == 0)*/ disabled)
REMOVE:kargl[253] more pr41807.f90.003t.original
MAIN__ ()
{
static struct a b[3] = {{.x={7.0e+0, 8.0e+0, 9.0e+0}}, {.x={1.0e+0, 2.0e+0,
3.0e+0}}};
integer(kind=4) i;
static integer(kind=4) z[3] = {1, 2, 3};
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41807
