Hello, I meant to add a link to the commit to the previous email:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=edfe198084338691d0facc86bf8dfa6ede3ca676 Thanks, Alexander Westbrooks On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:24 PM Alexander Westbrooks <ctechno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > I've updated the patch with those changes, ran through the gcc-verify > step and fixed up the commit, and then pushed it to the trunk. > > Thank you for your feedback, and I look forward to working on GFortran. > > Thanks, > > Alexander Westbrooks > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:55 PM Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > this is now mostly correct, with the following exceptions: > > > > First, you should notice that the formatting of the commit message, > > when checked using "git gcc-verify", needs minor corrections. You > > will be guided how to fix this yourself. > > > > Second, testcase pdt_37.f03 has an undeclared dummy argument, which > > can be detected by adding "implicit none" (I usually use that > > whenever implicit typing is not wanted explicitly). I would get: > > > > pdt_37.f03:33:47: > > > > 33 | subroutine assumed_len_param_ptr(this, that) > > | 1 > > Error: Symbol 'that' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type; did you mean 'this'? > > > > I assume you want to uncomment the declaration of dummy 'that'. > > > > Third, I still see a - minor - indentation/tabbing/space issue here: > > > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc > > index 44f89f6afb4..852e0820e6a 100644 > > --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc > > +++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc > > [...] > > + if ( resolve_bindings_derived->attr.pdt_template > > + && gfc_pdt_is_instance_of (resolve_bindings_derived, > > + CLASS_DATA (me_arg)->ts.u.derived) > > + && (me_arg->param_list != NULL) > > + && (gfc_spec_list_type (me_arg->param_list, > > + CLASS_DATA(me_arg)->ts.u.derived) > > + != SPEC_ASSUMED)) > > > > OK with the above fixed. > > > > Thanks for the patch! > > > > Harald > > > > On 2/28/24 07:24, Alexander Westbrooks wrote: > > > Harald, > > > > > > Jerry helped me figure out my editor settings so that I could fix > > > whitespace and formatting issues in my code. With my editor configured > > > correctly, I saw that my code was not conforming to coding standards > > > as I previously thought it was. I have fixed those things and updated > > > my patch. Thank you for your patience. > > > > > > Let me know if this is okay to push to the trunk. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Alexander Westbrooks > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 2:40 PM Alexander Westbrooks > > > <ctechno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Harald, > > >> > > >> Thank you for reviewing my code. I've been doing research and debugging > > >> to investigate the error thrown by Intel and NAG for the deferred > > >> parameter in the dummy variable declaration. I found where the problem > > >> was and added the fix as part of my patch. I've attached the patch as a > > >> file, which also includes your feedback and suggested fixes. I've > > >> updated the test case pdt_37.f03 to check for the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE > > >> error as you suggested. > > >> > > >> All regression tests pass, including the new ones, after including the > > >> fix for the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE error for CLASS declarations of PDTs > > >> when deferred length parameters are used. This was tested on WSL 2, with > > >> Ubuntu 20.04 distro. > > >> > > >> Is this okay to push to the trunk? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Alexander Westbrooks > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 2:11 PM Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Alex, > > >>> > > >>> I've been unable to apply your patch to my local trunk, likely due to > > >>> whitespace issues my newsreader handles differently from your site. > > >>> I see it inline instead of attached. > > >>> > > >>> A few general remarks: > > >>> > > >>> Please follow the general recommendation regarding style if possible, > > >>> see https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Formatting > > >>> regarding formatting/whitespace use (5.1) and comments (5.2) > > >>> > > >>> Also, when an error message text spans multiple lines, please place the > > >>> whitespace at the end of a line, not at the beginning of the new one: > > >>> > > >>>> + if ( resolve_bindings_derived->attr.pdt_template && > > >>>> + !gfc_pdt_is_instance_of(resolve_bindings_derived, > > >>>> + CLASS_DATA(me_arg)->ts.u.derived)) > > >>>> + { > > >>>> + gfc_error ("Argument %qs of %qs with PASS(%s) at %L must be of" > > >>>> + " the parametric derived-type %qs", me_arg->name, proc->name, > > >>> > > >>> gfc_error ("Argument %qs of %qs with PASS(%s) at %L must be of " > > >>> "the parametric derived-type %qs", me_arg->name, > > >>> proc->name, > > >>> > > >>>> + me_arg->name, &where, resolve_bindings_derived->name); > > >>>> + goto error; > > >>>> + } > > >>> > > >>> The following change is almost unreadable: the lnegthy comment is split > > >>> over three parts and almost hides the code. Couldn't this be combined > > >>> into one comment before the function? > > >>> > > >>>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc > > >>>> index fddf68f8398..11f4bac0415 100644 > > >>>> --- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc > > >>>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc > > >>>> @@ -5172,6 +5172,35 @@ gfc_type_is_extension_of (gfc_symbol *t1, > > >>>> gfc_symbol > > >>>> *t2) > > >>>> return gfc_compare_derived_types (t1, t2); > > >>>> } > > >>>> > > >>>> +/* Check if a parameterized derived type t2 is an instance of a PDT > > >>>> template t1 */ > > >>>> + > > >>>> +bool > > >>>> +gfc_pdt_is_instance_of(gfc_symbol *t1, gfc_symbol *t2) > > >>>> +{ > > >>>> + if ( !t1->attr.pdt_template || !t2->attr.pdt_type ) > > >>>> + return false; > > >>>> + > > >>>> + /* > > >>>> + in decl.cc, gfc_get_pdt_instance, a pdt instance is given a 3 > > >>>> character prefix "Pdt", followed > > >>>> + by an underscore list of the kind parameters, up to a maximum of > > >>>> 8. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + So to check if a PDT Type corresponds to the template, extract the > > >>>> core derive_type name, > > >>>> + and then see if it is type compatible by name... > > >>>> + > > >>>> + For example: > > >>>> + > > >>>> + Pdtf_2_2 -> extract out the 'f' -> see if the derived type 'f' is > > >>>> compatible with symbol t1 > > >>>> + */ > > >>>> + > > >>>> + // Starting at index 3 of the string in order to skip past the 'Pdt' > > >>>> prefix > > >>>> + // Also, here the length of the template name is used in order to > > >>>> avoid > > >>>> the > > >>>> + // kind parameter suffixes that are placed at the end of PDT > > >>>> instance > > >>>> names. > > >>>> + if ( !(strncmp(&(t2->name[3]), t1->name, strlen(t1->name)) == 0) ) > > >>>> + return false; > > >>>> + > > >>>> + return true; > > >>>> +} > > >>>> + > > >>>> > > >>>> /* Check if two typespecs are type compatible (F03:5.1.1.2): > > >>>> If ts1 is nonpolymorphic, ts2 must be the same type. > > >>> > > >>> The following testcase tests for errors. I tried Intel and NAG on it > > >>> after commenting the 'contains' section of the type desclaration. > > >>> Both complained about subroutine deferred_len_param, e.g. > > >>> > > >>> Intel: > > >>> A colon may only be used as a type parameter value in the declaration of > > >>> an object that has the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute. [THIS] > > >>> class(param_deriv_type(:)), intent(inout) :: this > > >>> > > >>> NAG: > > >>> Entity THIS of type PARAM_DERIV_TYPE(A=:) has a deferred length type > > >>> parameter but is not a data pointer or allocatable > > >>> > > >>> Do we detect this after your patch? If the answer is yes, > > >>> can we add another subroutine where we check for this error? > > >>> (the dg-error suggests we only expect assumed len type parameters.) > > >>> If no, maybe add a comment in the testcase that this subroutine > > >>> may need updating later. > > >>> > > >>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pdt_37.f03 > > >>>> b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pdt_37.f03 > > >>>> new file mode 100644 > > >>>> index 00000000000..68d376fad25 > > >>>> --- /dev/null > > >>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pdt_37.f03 > > >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ > > >>>> +! { dg-do compile } > > >>>> +! > > >>>> +! Tests the fixes for PR82943. > > >>>> +! > > >>>> +! This test focuses on the errors produced by incorrect LEN > > >>>> parameters for > > >>>> dummy > > >>>> +! arguments of PDT Typebound Procedures. > > >>>> +! > > >>>> +! Contributed by Alexander Westbrooks <ctechno...@gmail.com> > > >>>> +! > > >>>> +module test_len_param > > >>>> + > > >>>> + type :: param_deriv_type(a) > > >>>> + integer, len :: a > > >>>> + contains > > >>>> + procedure :: assumed_len_param ! Good. No error > > >>>> expected. > > >>>> + procedure :: deferred_len_param ! { dg-error "All LEN > > >>>> type > > >>>> parameters of the passed dummy argument" } > > >>>> + procedure :: fixed_len_param ! { dg-error "All LEN > > >>>> type > > >>>> parameters of the passed dummy argument" } > > >>>> + end type > > >>>> + > > >>>> +contains > > >>>> + subroutine assumed_len_param(this) > > >>>> + class(param_deriv_type(*)), intent(inout) :: this > > >>>> + end subroutine > > >>>> + > > >>>> + subroutine deferred_len_param(this) > > >>>> + class(param_deriv_type(:)), intent(inout) :: this > > >>>> + end subroutine > > >>>> + > > >>>> + subroutine fixed_len_param(this) > > >>>> + class(param_deriv_type(10)), intent(inout) :: this > > >>>> + end subroutine > > >>>> + > > >>>> +end module > > >>>> + > > >>> > >
