Hi Bernhard,
Am 12.11.21 um 21:18 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 18:39:48 +0100
Harald Anlauf via Fortran <fort...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
Sounds plausible.
this is what I thought, too. And nvfortran and flang accept the
testcase, as well as crayftn (cce/12.0.2).
Intel accepts the first case (a), but rejects the second (b).
I asked in the Intel forum. Steve Lionel doubts that the code is
valid.
There might be some confusion on my side, but having Cray on my
side feels good. (Although the PR was entered into bugzilla by
a Cray employee).
Nits:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c_sizeof_7.f90
b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c_sizeof_7.f90
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..3cfa3371f72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c_sizeof_7.f90
[I'd name this .f08, no?]
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+! { dg-do compile }
+! { dg-options "-std=f2008 -fdump-tree-original" }
[and drop the -std]
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_stop_numeric" 0 "original" } }
[ ...-times 0 == scan-tree-dump-not ]
Good point.
+! PR fortran/102368
+
+program main
+ use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
+ implicit none
+ character(kind=c_char, len=*), parameter :: a = 'abc'
+ character(kind=c_char, len=8) :: b
character(kind=c_char, len=-42) :: c ! { dg-error "positive integer greater than
0" }
character(kind=c_char, len=-0) :: d ! { dg-error "positive integer greater than
0" }
character(kind=c_char, len=0) :: e ! { dg-error "positive integer greater than
0" }
character(kind=c_char, len=+0) :: f ! { dg-error "positive integer greater than
0" }
character(kind=c_char, len=0.0d) :: g ! { dg-error "positive integer greater than
0" }
character(kind=c_char, len=3.) :: h ! { dg-error "positive integer greater than
0" }
character(kind=c_char, len=.031415e2) :: i ! { dg-error "positive integer greater
than 0" }
...
are caught elsewhere if one assumes that len should be a positive int > 0
(didn't look)
Also did not look if
character(kind=c_char, len=SELECTED_REAL_KIND(10)) :: j ! is that constant?
Should it be?
These things should already be handled in general and
elsewhere, as they are not about interoperability.
+ if (c_sizeof (a) /= 3) stop 1
+ if (c_sizeof (b) /= 8) stop 2
indeed.
cheers,
+end program main
--
2.26.2
Thanks,
Harald
