Re: [Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

2024-04-19 Thread Harald Anlauf

Hi Paul,

the patch is OK, but I had to manually fix it.  I wonder how you managed
to produce:

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90
b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90
new file mode 100644
index 000..4dcad47e8da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103471.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@

A minor comment on the error message and the testcase.
Take for example:

subroutine sub
  implicit none
  real, external :: x
  real   :: y(10)
  integer :: kk
  print *, [real(x(k))]
!  print *, [real(y(k))]
end

The original testcase in the PR would - without implicit none -
resemble the function invocation x(k) here and emit the error:

Fatal Error: k at (1) has no default type
compilation terminated.

while commenting the first print and uncommenting the second
would emit the message

Error: Symbol 'k' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type; did you mean 'kk'?

Thus I have the impression that the testcase tests something different
on the one hand, and on the other I wonder if we would want to change
the error message and replace "no default type" to "no IMPLICIT type".
It still would not hit the fuzzy check, but that is something that
might not be important now.

Thanks,
Harald


On 4/19/24 18:52, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:

Hi All,

This is a more or less obvious patch. The action is in resolve.cc. The
chunk in symbol.cc is a tidy up of a diagnostic marker to distinguish where
the 'no IMPLICIT type' error was coming from and the chunk in trans-decl.cc
follows from discussion with Harald on the PR.

Regtests fine. OK for mainline and backporting in a couple of weeks?

Paul

Fortran: Detect 'no implicit type' error in right place [PR103471]

2024-04-19  Paul Thomas  

gcc/fortran
PR fortran/103471
* resolve.cc (gfc_resolve_index_1): Block index expressions of
unknown type from being converted to default integer, avoiding
the fatal error in trans-decl.cc.
* symbol.cc (gfc_set_default_type): Remove '(symbol)' from the
'no IMPLICIT type' error message.
* trans-decl.cc (gfc_get_symbol_decl): Change fatal error locus
to that of the symbol declaration.
(gfc_trans_deferred_vars): Remove two trailing tabs.

gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/103471
* gfortran.dg/pr103471.f90: New test.





[Patch, fortran] PR103471 - [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

2024-04-19 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Hi All,

This is a more or less obvious patch. The action is in resolve.cc. The
chunk in symbol.cc is a tidy up of a diagnostic marker to distinguish where
the 'no IMPLICIT type' error was coming from and the chunk in trans-decl.cc
follows from discussion with Harald on the PR.

Regtests fine. OK for mainline and backporting in a couple of weeks?

Paul

Fortran: Detect 'no implicit type' error in right place [PR103471]

2024-04-19  Paul Thomas  

gcc/fortran
PR fortran/103471
* resolve.cc (gfc_resolve_index_1): Block index expressions of
unknown type from being converted to default integer, avoiding
the fatal error in trans-decl.cc.
* symbol.cc (gfc_set_default_type): Remove '(symbol)' from the
'no IMPLICIT type' error message.
* trans-decl.cc (gfc_get_symbol_decl): Change fatal error locus
to that of the symbol declaration.
(gfc_trans_deferred_vars): Remove two trailing tabs.

gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/103471
* gfortran.dg/pr103471.f90: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
index 6b3e5ba4fcb..9b7fabd3707 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
@@ -5001,7 +5001,8 @@ gfc_resolve_index_1 (gfc_expr *index, int check_scalar,

   if ((index->ts.kind != gfc_index_integer_kind
&& force_index_integer_kind)
-  || index->ts.type != BT_INTEGER)
+  || (index->ts.type != BT_INTEGER
+	  && index->ts.type != BT_UNKNOWN))
 {
   gfc_clear_ts ();
   ts.type = BT_INTEGER;
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
index 3a3b6de5cec..8f7deac1d1e 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ gfc_set_default_type (gfc_symbol *sym, int error_flag, gfc_namespace *ns)
 		   "; did you mean %qs?",
 		   sym->name, >declared_at, guessed);
 	  else
-	gfc_error ("Symbol %qs at %L has no IMPLICIT type(symbol)",
+	gfc_error ("Symbol %qs at %L has no IMPLICIT type",
 		   sym->name, >declared_at);
 	  sym->attr.untyped = 1; /* Ensure we only give an error once.  */
 	}
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
index e160c5c98c1..301439baaf5 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
@@ -1797,7 +1797,8 @@ gfc_get_symbol_decl (gfc_symbol * sym)
 }

   if (sym->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN)
-gfc_fatal_error ("%s at %C has no default type", sym->name);
+gfc_fatal_error ("%s at %L has no default type", sym->name,
+		 >declared_at);

   if (sym->attr.intrinsic)
 gfc_internal_error ("intrinsic variable which isn't a procedure");
@@ -5214,8 +5215,8 @@ gfc_trans_deferred_vars (gfc_symbol * proc_sym, gfc_wrapped_block * block)
 	tree tmp = lookup_attribute ("omp allocate",
  DECL_ATTRIBUTES (n->sym->backend_decl));
 	tmp = TREE_VALUE (tmp);
-	TREE_PURPOSE (tmp) = se.expr;
-	TREE_VALUE (tmp) = align;
+	TREE_PURPOSE (tmp) = se.expr;
+	TREE_VALUE (tmp) = align;
 	TREE_PURPOSE (TREE_CHAIN (tmp)) = init_stmtlist;
 	TREE_VALUE (TREE_CHAIN (tmp)) = cleanup_stmtlist;
   }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90
new file mode 100644
index 000..4dcad47e8da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr103471.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+! { dg-do compile }
+! Test the fix for PR103471 in which, rather than giving a "no IMPLICIT type"
+! message, gfortran took to ICEing. The fuzzy symbol check for 'kk' demonstrates
+! that the error is being detected in the right place.
+!
+! Contributed by Gerhard Steinmetz  
+!
+program p
+   implicit none
+   integer, parameter :: x(4) = [1,2,3,4]
+   integer :: kk
+   print *, [real(x(k))] ! { dg-error "has no IMPLICIT type; did you mean .kk.\\?" }
+end


Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

2024-04-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 07:06, Thomas Koenig via Gcc  wrote:
>
> Am 18.04.24 um 01:27 schrieb Mark Wielaard:
> > We also should make sure that all generated files (either in git or in
> > the release/snapshot tar balls) can be reliably and reproducibly
> > regenerated. This also helps the (pre-commit) CI buildbots. We already
> > have the autoregen bots for gcc and binutils-gdb. And Christoph has
> > been working on extending the scripts to regenerate more kinds of
> > files.
>
> I regenerate auto* files from time to time for libgfortran. Regenerating
> them has always been very fragile (using --enable-maintainer-mode),
> and difficult to get right.

I've been curious for ages why gfortran requires using maintainer mode
for that. Nobody else uses maintainer mode for GCC development, so it
causes friction when somebody has to do changes across the whole of
gcc including gfortran parts.

If it doesn't work with a simple autoreconf then that should be fixed.