[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 15:47:26 UTC --- There is some debate whether or not I did this properly. I was rushing last night, cobbled the PR number in the email subject, omitted the patch to the mailing list, left the pr number off the Changlog entry ... I hope I did not break the build and I apologize for any inconveniance I caused. I posted this here because I do not have regular email at my work location which is quite remote at the moment. Cheers everyone and I will do better next time. ;) (The service is free, as in free beer)
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 05:17:51 UTC --- I will test and commit the patch. Thanks.
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 06:07:18 UTC --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Feb 9 06:07:14 2011 New Revision: 169962 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169962 Log: 2011-02-08 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/47583 * gfortran.dg/inquire_14.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/inquire_14.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 06:11:39 UTC --- Fixed, thanks for bug report.
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #12 from Harald Klimach harald at klimachs dot de 2011-02-09 06:37:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) Thanks a lot for taking the time to properly incorporate the fix!
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #6 from Harald Klimach harald at klimachs dot de 2011-02-02 08:04:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) Thanks a lot, at least for me this patch seems to solve the problem.
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #7 from jpr at csc dot fi 2011-02-02 12:48:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) Thanks a lot, at least for me this patch seems to solve the problem. Well, that patch did break the direct_io_1.f90 test case however, as the ext.dt member setting overwrote the ext.iterator member (when there was implied do loop in the inquire(iolength=) statement). This might be better: Index: io.c === --- io.c(revision 169506) +++ io.c(working copy) @@ -3091,7 +3091,8 @@ cp = gfc_get_code (); cp-op = EXEC_TRANSFER; cp-expr1 = expr; - cp-ext.dt = current_dt; + if (k != M_INQUIRE) +cp-ext.dt = current_dt; *cpp = cp; return MATCH_YES;
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2011.02.03 05:36:04 CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-03 05:36:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) Thanks a lot, at least for me this patch seems to solve the problem. Well, that patch did break the direct_io_1.f90 test case however, as the ext.dt member setting overwrote the ext.iterator member (when there was implied do loop in the inquire(iolength=) statement). This might be better: It's nice to see a fresh email address! Do you have commit rights or should one of Jerry or I do the honours for you? I would feel more comfortable if it was Jerry, so that he can cast an expert eye over this. I do not think that I have visited io.c for about 5 years :-( Thanks Paul
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot ||gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 Summary|Inquire affected by |[4.6 Regression] Inquire |previous read |affected by previous read --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-02 03:09:28 UTC --- Confirmed, the code compiles with 4.5, making this a regression.
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #3 from Harald Klimach harald at klimachs dot de 2011-02-02 06:04:07 UTC --- The problem also exists with scalars and integers instead of reals.
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 --- Comment #4 from Harald Klimach harald at klimachs dot de 2011-02-02 06:14:58 UTC --- Further reduced test case: subroutine input() read(*,*) end subroutine input subroutine abc(sizedat) integer, intent(in) :: sizedat integer :: rl inquire(iolength=rl) sizedat end subroutine abc (now tested with gcc version 4.6.0 20110201 (experimental) [trunk revision 169504] (GCC) on Linux)
[Bug fortran/47583] [4.6 Regression] Inquire affected by previous read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47583 jpr at csc dot fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jpr at csc dot fi --- Comment #5 from jpr at csc dot fi 2011-02-02 07:12:16 UTC --- Possible (untested) fix. The ext.dt field in io/match_inquire()'s code variable is a leftover from previous io matching (set in match_io_element()). This triggers the bug in resolve_transfer(). There is even a comment there, that indicates that this field should be null for INQUIRE (iolength), thus: Index: io.c === --- io.c(revision 169506) +++ io.c(working copy) @@ -3933,6 +3933,7 @@ new_st.block = gfc_get_code (); new_st.block-op = EXEC_IOLENGTH; + code-ext.dt = NULL; terminate_io (code); new_st.block-next = code; return MATCH_YES;
