Hi Chris,
thanks for the patch!
I fixed the commit message, as it did not refer to the files
changed/added, and pushed the whole as r16-7513-gedced0fe1e28a3 .
Thanks,
Harald
On 2/13/26 23:00, Christopher Albert wrote:
Fix iterator-depth pre-counting in gfc_resolve_forall for nested
DO CONCURRENT/FORALL constructs inside block arms (e.g. IF/ELSE,
SELECT CASE). The previous logic only scanned a flat next-chain,
which could undercount and trigger an ICE assertion.
Add a regression test based on a reduced testcase from Harald Anlauf.
Adjust wording in one comment to avoid GNU-style checker complaints.
PR fortran/123943
Co-authored-by: Harald Anlauf <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christopher Albert <[email protected]>
---
gcc/fortran/resolve.cc | 53 +++++++++++++++++---------
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr123943.f90 | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr123943.f90
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
index e5b36234d7e..d98c2d65476 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
@@ -12433,33 +12433,50 @@ gfc_resolve_forall_body (gfc_code *code, int nvar,
gfc_expr **var_expr)
nested forall constructs. This is used to allocate the needed memory
in gfc_resolve_forall. */
+static int gfc_count_forall_iterators (gfc_code *code);
+
+/* Return the deepest nested FORALL/DO CONCURRENT iterator count in CODE's
+ next-chain, descending into block arms such as IF/ELSE branches. */
+
+static int
+gfc_max_forall_iterators_in_chain (gfc_code *code)
+{
+ int max_iters = 0;
+
+ for (gfc_code *c = code; c; c = c->next)
+ {
+ int sub_iters = 0;
+
+ if (c->op == EXEC_FORALL || c->op == EXEC_DO_CONCURRENT)
+ sub_iters = gfc_count_forall_iterators (c);
+ else if (c->block)
+ for (gfc_code *b = c->block; b; b = b->block)
+ {
+ int arm_iters = gfc_max_forall_iterators_in_chain (b->next);
+ if (arm_iters > sub_iters)
+ sub_iters = arm_iters;
+ }
+
+ if (sub_iters > max_iters)
+ max_iters = sub_iters;
+ }
+
+ return max_iters;
+}
+
+
static int
gfc_count_forall_iterators (gfc_code *code)
{
- int max_iters, sub_iters, current_iters;
+ int current_iters = 0;
gfc_forall_iterator *fa;
gcc_assert (code->op == EXEC_FORALL || code->op == EXEC_DO_CONCURRENT);
- max_iters = 0;
- current_iters = 0;
for (fa = code->ext.concur.forall_iterator; fa; fa = fa->next)
- current_iters ++;
-
- code = code->block->next;
-
- while (code)
- {
- if (code->op == EXEC_FORALL || code->op == EXEC_DO_CONCURRENT)
- {
- sub_iters = gfc_count_forall_iterators (code);
- if (sub_iters > max_iters)
- max_iters = sub_iters;
- }
- code = code->next;
- }
+ current_iters++;
- return current_iters + max_iters;
+ return current_iters + gfc_max_forall_iterators_in_chain (code->block->next);
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr123943.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr123943.f90
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..6d6461317c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr123943.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+! { dg-do compile }
+! PR fortran/123943
+!
+! Nested DO CONCURRENT in block constructs must not ICE in gfc_resolve_forall.
+! Reduced testcase by Harald Anlauf <[email protected]>
+
+subroutine nested_in_if
+ implicit none
+ integer :: k, l
+
+ do concurrent (k = 1:5)
+ if (k == 3) then
+ do concurrent (l = 1:4)
+ end do
+ end if
+ end do
+end subroutine nested_in_if
+
+
+subroutine nested_in_if_else
+ implicit none
+ integer :: k, l
+
+ do concurrent (k = 1:5)
+ if (k == 3) then
+ do concurrent (l = 1:4)
+ end do
+ else
+ do concurrent (l = 1:2)
+ end do
+ end if
+ end do
+end subroutine nested_in_if_else
+
+
+subroutine nested_in_select_case
+ implicit none
+ integer :: k, l
+
+ do concurrent (k = 1:5)
+ select case (k)
+ case (3)
+ do concurrent (l = 1:4)
+ end do
+ case default
+ end select
+ end do
+end subroutine nested_in_select_case
