double-ping!
2016-11-26 10:45 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: > ping! > > > 2016-11-19 10:12 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: >> Hi all, >> >>> I previously assumed that the test case for this PR would be legal, >>> but by now I think that's wrong. The test case should be rejected, and >>> we already have checking mechanisms for this (see >>> resolve_fl_variable), but apparently they are not working. >>> >>> My current suspicion is that 'gfc_is_constant_expr' has a bug, because >>> it claims the call to the function 'get_i' to be a constant >>> expression. This is not true, because get_i() can not be reduced to a >>> compile-time constant. >> >> some more reading in the standard confirms this suspicion: In >> gfc_is_constant_expr there is a piece of code which claims that >> specification functions are constant. That is certainly not true, and >> so what I'm doing in the attached fix is to remove that code and add >> some references to the standard to make things clearer. >> >> The code that I'm removing has last been touched in this commit by >> Jerry six years ago: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=166520 >> >> However, this did not introduce the bug in the first place (not sure >> when that happened). >> >> In any case the new patch in the attachment regtests cleanly and >> correctly rejects the original test case as well as one of the cases >> mentioned by Dominique. Ok for trunk? >> >> Cheers, >> Janus >> >> >> >> 2016-11-19 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> >> >> PR fortran/78392 >> * expr.c (gfc_is_constant_expr): Specification functions are not >> compile-time constants. Update documentation (add reference to F08 >> standard), add a FIXME. >> (external_spec_function): Add reference to F08 standard. >> * resolve.c (resolve_fl_variable): Ditto. >> >> 2016-11-19 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> >> >> PR fortran/78392 >> * gfortran.dg/constant_shape.f90: New test case.
