Hi all!

Update to a proposed patch to:

PR100683 - Array initialization refuses valid

due to errors found by Dominique d'Humieres.

Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

Add call to simplify expression before parsing *and* check if the expression is still an array after simplification.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
José Rui

Fortran: Fix bogus error

gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:

    PR fortran/100683
    * resolve.c (gfc_resolve_expr): Add call to gfc_simplify_expr.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

    PR fortran/100683
    * gfortran.dg/PR100683.f90: New test.

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index a37ad66..a9518e7 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
@@ -7138,8 +7138,10 @@ gfc_resolve_expr (gfc_expr *e)
       /* Also try to expand a constructor.  */
       if (t)
 	{
+	  gfc_simplify_expr(e, 1);
 	  gfc_expression_rank (e);
-	  if (gfc_is_constant_expr (e) || gfc_is_expandable_expr (e))
+	  if (e->expr_type == EXPR_ARRAY
+	      && (gfc_is_constant_expr (e) || gfc_is_expandable_expr (e)))
 	    gfc_expand_constructor (e, false);
 	}
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR100683.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR100683.f90
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6929bb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/PR100683.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+! { dg-do run }
+!
+! Test the fix for PR100683
+! 
+
+program main_p
+
+  implicit none
+
+  integer            :: i
+  integer, parameter :: n = 11
+  integer, parameter :: u(*) = [(i, i=1,n)]
+
+  type :: foo_t
+    integer :: i
+  end type foo_t
+
+  type, extends(foo_t) :: bar_t
+    integer :: a(n)
+  end type bar_t
+  
+  type(bar_t), parameter :: a(*) = [(bar_t(i, u), i=1,n)]
+  type(bar_t)            :: b(n) = [(bar_t(i, u), i=1,n)]
+
+  if(any(a(:)%i/=u))   stop 1
+  do i = 1, n
+    if(any(a(i)%a/=u)) stop 2
+  end do
+  if(any(b(:)%i/=u))   stop 3
+  do i = 1, n
+    if(any(b(i)%a/=u)) stop 4
+  end do
+  stop
+
+end program main_p
+

Reply via email to