[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

2011-10-20 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED

--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20 18:11:33 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk for static checking.  Runtime checking is not
going to happen due to the overhead.


[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

2011-09-29 Thread zeccav at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514

--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-29 
06:58:24 UTC ---
About run time checking: I believe the bit size of k is known at compile time,
and the overhead to check n against it is negligible as compared to computing
ishft itself and maybe n.
Of course when I am asking -fcheck I am prepared to slower execution, but it
may well pay off, if I find a bug. I believe programmer (debugging) time is now
costlier than hardware time.


[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

2011-09-28 Thread zeccav at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514

--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 
09:20:40 UTC ---
I meant checking static expressions at compilation time, as in my example.
This has no cost at run time.
You proposed a run time check that still should be done if requested with a
kind of -fcheck option.
By the way, gfortran is already checking consistency of static arguments to
intrinsic functions, it is that just these one are left unchecked.


[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

2011-09-28 Thread sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514

--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 
2011-09-28 19:45:48 UTC ---
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:20:40AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
 
 --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 
 09:20:40 UTC ---
 I meant checking static expressions at compilation time, as in my example.
 This has no cost at run time.

I know want you meant.

 You proposed a run time check that still should be done if requested with a
 kind of -fcheck option.

I disagree.

 By the way, gfortran is already checking consistency of static arguments to
 intrinsic functions, it is that just these one are left unchecked.

Yes, I know.  I wrote some of the code.

Index: testsuite/gfortran.dg/ishft_3.f90
===
--- testsuite/gfortran.dg/ishft_3.f90(revision 179208)
+++ testsuite/gfortran.dg/ishft_3.f90(working copy)
@@ -1,11 +1,38 @@
 ! { dg-do compile }
+! PR fortran/50514
 program ishft_3
-  integer i, j
-  write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 2, 3 )
-  write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 2, i )
-  write(*,*) ishftc( 3, i, j )
-  write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 128 ) ! { dg-error exceeds BIT_SIZE of first }
-  write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 0, 128 )  ! { dg-error exceeds BIT_SIZE of first }
-  write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 0, 0 )! { dg-error Invalid third argument }
-  write(*,*) ishftc( 3, 3, 2 )! { dg-error exceeds third argument }
+
+   implicit none
+
+   integer j, m
+
+   m = 42
+   !
+   ! These should compile.
+   !
+   j = ishft(m, 16)
+   j = ishft(m, -16)
+   j = ishftc(m, 16)
+   j = ishftc(m, -16)
+   !
+   ! These should issue an error.
+   !
+   j = ishft(m, 640)! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+   j = ishftc(m, 640)   ! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+   j = ishft(m, -640)   ! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+   j = ishftc(m, -640)  ! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+
+   ! abs(SHIFT) must be = SIZE
+
+   j = ishftc(m,  1, 2)
+   j = ishftc(m,  1, 2)
+   j = ishftc(m, -1, 2)
+   j = ishftc(m, -1, 2)
+
+   j = ishftc(m,  10, 2)! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+   j = ishftc(m,  10, 2)! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+   j = ishftc(m, -10, 2)! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+   j = ishftc(m, -10, 2)! { dg-error absolute value of SHIFT }
+
+   j = ishftc(m, 1, -2) ! { dg-error must be positive }
 end program

Index: fortran/check.c
===
--- fortran/check.c(revision 179208)
+++ fortran/check.c(working copy)
@@ -318,6 +318,22 @@ less_than_bitsize1 (const char *arg1, gf
 {
   gfc_extract_int (expr2, i2);
   i3 = gfc_validate_kind (BT_INTEGER, expr1-ts.kind, false);
+ 
+  /* For ISHFT[C], |shift| = bit_size(i).  */
+  if (strncmp (arg2, ISHFT, 5) == 0)
+{
+  if (i2  0)
+i2 = -i2;
+
+  if (i2  gfc_integer_kinds[i3].bit_size)
+{
+  gfc_error (The absolute value of SHIFT at %L must be less 
+ than or equal to BIT_SIZE('%s'),
+ expr2-where, arg1);
+  return FAILURE;
+}
+}
+
   if (or_equal)
 {
   if (i2  gfc_integer_kinds[i3].bit_size)
@@ -1961,6 +1977,9 @@ gfc_check_ishft (gfc_expr *i, gfc_expr *
   || type_check (shift, 1, BT_INTEGER) == FAILURE)
 return FAILURE;

+  if (less_than_bitsize1 (I, i, ISHFT, shift, true) == FAILURE)
+return FAILURE;
+
   return SUCCESS;
 }

@@ -1972,7 +1991,35 @@ gfc_check_ishftc (gfc_expr *i, gfc_expr 
   || type_check (shift, 1, BT_INTEGER) == FAILURE)
 return FAILURE;

-  if (size != NULL  type_check (size, 2, BT_INTEGER) == FAILURE)
+  if (size != NULL) 
+{
+  int i2, i3;
+
+  if (type_check (size, 2, BT_INTEGER) == FAILURE)
+return FAILURE;
+
+  if (less_than_bitsize1 (I, i, SIZE, size, true) == FAILURE)
+return FAILURE;
+
+  gfc_extract_int (size, i3);
+  if (i3 = 0)
+{
+  gfc_error (SIZE at %L must be positive, size-where);
+  return FAILURE;
+}
+
+  gfc_extract_int (shift, i2);
+  if (i2  0)
+i2 = -i2;
+
+  if (i2  i3)
+{
+  gfc_error (The absolute value of SHIFT at %L must be less than 
+ or equal to SIZE at %L, shift-where, size-where);
+  return FAILURE;
+}
+}
+  else if (less_than_bitsize1 (I, i, ISHFTC, shift, true) == FAILURE)
 return FAILURE;

   return SUCCESS;


[Bug fortran/50514] gfortran should check ISHFT ISHFTC aruments (r178939)

2011-09-25 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-25 22:05:14 UTC ---
Technically, it the programmer that should check the arguments.
The prohibitions in the Fortran Standard are placed on the
programmer not the Fortran processor (ie., the compiler).

Adding the check into

do i = 1,100
   do j = 1, 100
  do k = 1, 100
 ! Some stuff here to compute k and n  bit_size(k)
 m = ishft(k,n)  ! for some k, n
 ! More stuff here to use m
  end do
   end do
end do

seems like useless overhead.