[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > More than three years ago Tobias Burnus wrote > > > Actually, I am no longer sure that this PR is valid - nor is Richard Maine > > in c.l.f. Janus seems to have the same doubts, if I read comment 5 > > correctly. > > > > The standard seems to make a distinction between 'generic type-bound > > procedure' > > and 'generic procedure name'. More that three years later without feedback I am closing this PR as INVALID.
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres --- More than three years ago Tobias Burnus wrote > Actually, I am no longer sure that this PR is valid - nor is Richard Maine > in c.l.f. Janus seems to have the same doubts, if I read comment 5 correctly. > > The standard seems to make a distinction between 'generic type-bound > procedure' > and 'generic procedure name'. Any reason to keep this PR opened? Note that the tests now fail with Error: INTENT(OUT) argument 'a' of pure procedure 'scalar_equals_field' at (1) may not be polymorphic
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 --- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-21 14:39:32 UTC --- Actually, I am no longer sure that this PR is valid - nor is Richard Maine in c.l.f. Janus seems to have the same doubts, if I read comment 5 correctly. The standard seems to make a distinction between 'generic type-bound procedure' and 'generic procedure name'.
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-19 21:56:09 UTC ---
One problem with the patch in comment #6 is that it produces double error
messages for type-bound generics, e.g. on typebound_generic_{1,10,11}.
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-19 10:46:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Btw, I'm not completely convinced yet that the code in comment #0 (and #4) is
> really legal.
In any case, here is a simple draft patch, which makes the code in comment 4
work (at least when the ONLY clause in the USE statement is removed):
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c(revision 188334)
+++ gcc/fortran/decl.c(working copy)
@@ -8374,12 +8374,20 @@ gfc_match_generic (void)
{
const bool is_op = (op_type == INTERFACE_USER_OP);
gfc_symtree* st;
+gfc_symbol *gensym;
st = gfc_new_symtree (is_op ? &ns->tb_uop_root : &ns->tb_sym_root,
name);
gcc_assert (st);
st->n.tb = tb;
+/* Create non-typebound generic symbol. */
+if (gfc_get_symbol (name, NULL, &gensym))
+ return MATCH_ERROR;
+if (!gensym->attr.generic
+&& gfc_add_generic (&gensym->attr, gensym->name, NULL) == FAILURE)
+ return MATCH_ERROR;
+
break;
}
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 188335)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c(working copy)
@@ -11125,6 +11125,26 @@ specific_found:
return FAILURE;
}
+/* Add target to (non-typebound) generic symbol. */
+if (!p->u.generic->is_operator)
+ {
+gfc_symbol *gensym;
+if (gfc_get_symbol (name, NULL, &gensym))
+ return FAILURE;
+if (gensym)
+ {
+gfc_interface *head, *intr;
+head = gensym->generic;
+intr = gfc_get_interface ();
+intr->sym = target->specific->u.specific->n.sym;
+intr->where = gfc_current_locus;
+intr->sym->declared_at = gfc_current_locus;
+intr->next = head;
+gensym->generic = intr;
+gfc_commit_symbol (gensym);
+ }
+ }
+
/* Check those already resolved on this type directly. */
for (g = p->u.generic; g; g = g->next)
if (g != target && g->specific
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-19 09:52:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > > > See also: > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.fortran/YDt3j0--1Do > > Note: That link does not seem to work. > > Try: > > http://www.rhinocerus.net/forum/lang-fortran/708232-there-way-do-following.html The correct google groups link would be: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/YDt3j0--1Do Btw, I'm not completely convinced yet that the code in comment #0 (and #4) is really legal. No one in the c.l.f. thread has brought up a quote from the standard which clearly shows that referencing a type-bound generic is legal without part-ref syntax. For me, to most convincing reference up to now is this quote from F08:12.4.3.4.5 (though it still sounds a bit 'cloudy' to me): NOTE 12.10 In most scoping units, the possible sources of procedures with a particular generic identifier are the accessible interface blocks and the generic bindings other than names for the accessible objects in that scoping unit.
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2012-06-17 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-17 22:03:05 UTC --- Slightly compactified test case: module type_mod implicit none type field real :: var(1:3) contains procedure :: scalar_equals_field generic :: assignment (=) => scalar_equals_field procedure, nopass :: field_sqrt generic :: sqrt => field_sqrt end type contains elemental pure subroutine scalar_equals_field (A, b) class(field), intent(out) :: A real, intent(in) :: b A%var(:) = b end subroutine elemental pure function field_sqrt (A) result (B) class(field), intent(in) :: A type(field) :: B B%var(:) = sqrt (A%var(:)) end function end module program test use type_mod, only : field implicit none type(field) :: a a = 4.0 print *, sqrt(a) end program
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-17 19:06:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > See also: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.fortran/YDt3j0--1Do > Note: That link does not seem to work. Try: http://www.rhinocerus.net/forum/lang-fortran/708232-there-way-do-following.html
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-17 17:19:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > It is not obvious from the standard that this holds, but it is analog to > ASSIGNMENT(=) and OPERATOR(...) which also act that way. [Which is supported > in > gfortran.] It is correct that gfortran supports this for ASSIGNMENTs and OPERATORs. However, there are problems, cf. PR 41951 comment 6 to 10. The two PRs might be fixable in one go.
[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-17 08:52:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > See also: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.fortran/YDt3j0--1Do Note: That link does not seem to work.
