[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin --- Fixed for gfortran 14.1. Closing.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #11 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7f233feafd657250340be3b3500d2697948ae3ed commit r14-9703-g7f233feafd657250340be3b3500d2697948ae3ed Author: Mikael Morin Date: Wed Mar 27 16:30:42 2024 +0100 fortran: Fix specification expression check in submodules [PR114475] The patch fixing PR111781 made the check of specification expressions more restrictive, disallowing local variables in specification expressions of dummy arguments. PR114475 showed an example where that change regressed, disallowing in submodules expressions that had been allowed in the parent module. In submodules indeed, the hierarchy of namespaces inherited from the parent module is not reproduced so the host-association of symbols can't be recognized by checking the nesting of namespaces. This change fixes the problem by allowing in specification expressions all the symbols in a submodule that are inherited from the parent module. PR fortran/111781 PR fortran/114475 gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: * expr.cc (check_restricted): In submodules, allow variables host- associated from the parent module. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gfortran.dg/spec_expr_10.f90: New test. Co-authored-by: Harald Anlauf
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #10 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44c0398e65347def316700911a51ca8b4ec0a411 commit r14-9618-g44c0398e65347def316700911a51ca8b4ec0a411 Author: Mikael Morin Date: Fri Mar 22 12:32:34 2024 +0100 fortran: Fix specification expression error with dummy procedures [PR111781] This fixes a spurious invalid variable in specification expression error. The error was caused on the testcase from the PR by two different bugs. First, the call to is_parent_of_current_ns was unable to recognize correct host association and returned false. Second, an ad-hoc condition coming next was using a global variable previously improperly restored to false (instead of restoring it to its initial value). The latter happened on the testcase because one dummy argument was a procedure, and checking that argument what causing a check of all its arguments with the (improper) reset of the flag at the end, and that preceded the check of the next argument. For the first bug, the wrong result of is_parent_of_current_ns is fixed by correcting the namespaces that function deals with, both the one passed as argument and the current one tracked in the gfc_current_ns global. Two new functions are introduced to select the right namespace. Regarding the second bug, the problematic condition is removed, together with the formal_arg_flag associated with it. Indeed, that condition was (wrongly) allowing local variables to be used in array bounds of dummy arguments. PR fortran/111781 gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: * symbol.cc (gfc_get_procedure_ns, gfc_get_spec_ns): New functions. * gfortran.h (gfc_get_procedure_ns, gfc_get_spec ns): Declare them. (gfc_is_formal_arg): Remove. * expr.cc (check_restricted): Remove special case allowing local variable in dummy argument bound expressions. Use gfc_get_spec_ns to get the right namespace. * resolve.cc (gfc_is_formal_arg, formal_arg_flag): Remove. (gfc_resolve_formal_arglist): Set gfc_current_ns. Quit loop and restore gfc_current_ns instead of early returning. (resolve_symbol): Factor common array spec resolution code to... (resolve_symbol_array_spec): ... this new function. Additionnally set and restore gfc_current_ns. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gfortran.dg/spec_expr_8.f90: New test. * gfortran.dg/spec_expr_9.f90: New test.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #8) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > > Excess errors: > > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90:16:16: Error: > > Variable 'n' cannot appear in the expression at (1) > > This is wrong: the testcase looks valid to me. > Yes, to me as well. So the patch needs more work. :-( > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > > Excess errors: > > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90:7:18: > > Error: Variable 'n' cannot appear in the expression at (1) > > Hmmm, not diagnosed by Intel. > Strange that it is able to diagnose the other, but not this one. > > We obviously have several invalid testcases in the testsuite... > Probably just bad reductions. Yes, variables named inout especially look like dubious (but valid) reductions.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #7) > The changes are these: > > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78061.f -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr79315.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr90681.f -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr97761.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr99746.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr79315.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr79315.f90:18:18: Error: > Variable 'ims' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Confirmed by Intel. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90:5:19: Error: > Variable 'ime' cannot appear in the expression at (1) > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90:5:24: Error: > Variable 'in' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Likewise. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90:5:19: Error: > Variable 'ime' cannot appear in the expression at (1) > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90:5:24: Error: > Variable 'in' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Likewise. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78061.f -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78061.f:4:13: Error: > Variable 'ldc' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Likewise. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90:16:16: Error: > Variable 'n' cannot appear in the expression at (1) This is wrong: the testcase looks valid to me. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90:7:18: > Error: Variable 'n' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Hmmm, not diagnosed by Intel. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr90681.f -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr90681.f:5:19: Error: > Variable 'norbs' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Detected by Intel. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr97761.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr97761.f90:11:36: > Error: Variable 'inout' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Funny: type (quad_inductor), dimension(inout) :: ps Intel's message is also confusing in that case. > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr99746.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr99746.f90:6:21: > Error: Variable 'lda' cannot appear in the expression at (1) Detected by Intel. We obviously have several invalid testcases in the testsuite... Probably just bad reductions.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6) > I need to reevaluate it; there were other regressions if I remember > correctly. The changes are these: PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90 -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90 -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78061.f -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr79315.f90 -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr90681.f -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr97761.f90 -O (test for excess errors) PASS->FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr99746.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr79315.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr79315.f90:18:18: Error: Variable 'ims' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90:5:19: Error: Variable 'ime' cannot appear in the expression at (1) /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr101267.f90:5:24: Error: Variable 'in' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90:5:19: Error: Variable 'ime' cannot appear in the expression at (1) /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr112404.f90:5:24: Error: Variable 'in' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr78061.f -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr78061.f:4:13: Error: Variable 'ldc' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr98016.f90:16:16: Error: Variable 'n' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/graphite/pr107865.f90:7:18: Error: Variable 'n' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr90681.f -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr90681.f:5:19: Error: Variable 'norbs' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr97761.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr97761.f90:11:36: Error: Variable 'inout' cannot appear in the expression at (1) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr99746.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/mik/gcc/gccx/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr99746.f90:6:21: Error: Variable 'lda' cannot appear in the expression at (1)
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 57571 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57571&action=edit Tentative patch (In reply to anlauf from comment #5) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > > Thus I suggest to fix the testcase by one of the options suggested above. > > Testcase gfortran.dg/pr101026.f is corrected at r14-9220. Ah, yes, thanks. I attach above the tentative patch that I tried before. I need to reevaluate it; there were other regressions if I remember correctly.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > Thus I suggest to fix the testcase by one of the options suggested above. Testcase gfortran.dg/pr101026.f is corrected at r14-9220.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3) > Unfortunately, it regresses a bit, say pr101026.f for example can be > simplified to this: > > SUBROUTINE PASSB4 (CC,CH) > DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) > END > > which gives: > > pr101026.f:4:19: > > 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) > | 1 > Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) > pr101026.f:4:33: > > 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) > | 1 > Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) > pr101026.f:4:25: > > 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) > | 1 > Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) > pr101026.f:4:37: > > 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) > | 1 > Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) > > > What I don't see is what makes the IDO and L1 variables acceptable in a > specification expression. It seems to me the errors above are valid. FWIW, NAG and Intel agree with you. With the original pr101026.f I get: NAG: Error: pr101026.f, line 4: IDO is not permitted in a specification expression Error: pr101026.f, line 4: L1 is not permitted in a specification expression Error: pr101026.f, line 4: IDO is not permitted in a specification expression Error: pr101026.f, line 4: L1 is not permitted in a specification expression Intel: pr101026.f(4): error #6219: This variable, used in a specification expression, must be a dummy argument, a COMMON block object, or an object accessible through host or use association. [IDO] DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) ---^ pr101026.f(4): error #6219: This variable, used in a specification expression, must be a dummy argument, a COMMON block object, or an object accessible through host or use association. [L1] DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) -^ Thus I suggest to fix the testcase by one of the options suggested above.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin --- I'm trying to remove the formal_arg_flag global variables, which seem to just disable all the checks on dummy arguments. Unfortunately, it regresses a bit, say pr101026.f for example can be simplified to this: SUBROUTINE PASSB4 (CC,CH) DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) END which gives: pr101026.f:4:19: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) pr101026.f:4:33: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) pr101026.f:4:25: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) pr101026.f:4:37: 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*) | 1 Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1) What I don't see is what makes the IDO and L1 variables acceptable in a specification expression. It seems to me the errors above are valid.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- I'm on it.
[Bug fortran/111781] Fortran compiler complains about variable bound in array dummy argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords||patch CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2023-10-12 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- Confirmed. This should fix it: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc index 1042b8c18e8..e2e0fc8eba3 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc @@ -285,6 +285,7 @@ gfc_resolve_formal_arglist (gfc_symbol *proc) sym->attr.always_explicit = 1; } + bool saved_formal_arg_flag = formal_arg_flag; formal_arg_flag = true; for (f = proc->formal; f; f = f->next) @@ -533,7 +534,7 @@ gfc_resolve_formal_arglist (gfc_symbol *proc) } } } - formal_arg_flag = false; + formal_arg_flag = saved_formal_arg_flag; }
