[Bug fortran/56800] [fortran-dev Regression] move_alloc_13.f90 failure

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800



Tobias Burnus  changed:



   What|Removed |Added



 Status|NEW |RESOLVED

 Resolution||FIXED



--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus  2013-05-07 
10:01:47 UTC ---

really mark as FIXED

[Bug fortran/56800] [fortran-dev Regression] move_alloc_13.f90 failure

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800



--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus  2013-05-07 
10:00:20 UTC ---

FIXED by the following commit (on the Fortran-dev branch).



Thanks for the report!





Author: burnus

Date: Tue May  7 09:37:19 2013

New Revision: 198669



URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198669&root=gcc&view=rev

Log:

2013-05-07  Tobias Burnus  



* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_descriptor_stride_get,

gfc_conv_descriptor_stride_set): Use elem_len, unless it is

a nonstring intrinsic type for which size_in_bytes is used.

(gfc_array_init_size): Set elem_len before handling the

strides.

* trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_subref_array_arg): Remove no-op

extent shifting code.





Modified:

branches/fortran-dev/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog.fortran-dev

branches/fortran-dev/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c

branches/fortran-dev/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c

[Bug fortran/56800] [fortran-dev Regression] move_alloc_13.f90 failure

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800



--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus  2013-04-30 
21:57:28 UTC ---

For the test case in comment 0:

__builtin_memset (y._data.base_addr, 0, 4);

y._data.rank = 1;

y._data.type = -1;

y._data.dim[0].lower_bound = 1;

y._data.dim[0].extent = 2 - y._data.dim[0].lower_bound;

y._data.dim[0].sm = (integer(kind=8)) y._data.elem_len;



Here a line like:

  y._data.elem_len = 4;

is missing. elem_len needs always to be updated for BT_CLASS.

[Bug fortran/56800] [fortran-dev Regression] move_alloc_13.f90 failure

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800



Dominique d'Humieres  changed:



   What|Removed |Added



 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

   Last reconfirmed||2013-04-27

 Ever Confirmed|0   |1



--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres  2013-04-27 
13:42:51 UTC ---

Confirmed for the fortran-dev branch r198346 with the patch at

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-04/msg00237.html.

[Bug fortran/56800] [fortran-dev Regression] move_alloc_13.f90 failure

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800



--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus  2013-04-01 
21:34:55 UTC ---

Created attachment 29769

  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29769

Early draft patch



The patch mostly implements a fix for this bug - but it needs some clean up in

the bottom part. As I run out of time, I attach it here.

[Bug fortran/56800] [fortran-dev Regression] move_alloc_13.f90 failure

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800



--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus  2013-04-01 
18:01:03 UTC ---

The problem is in gfc_array_init_size. There, one should first obtain the

element size. And instead of gfc_conv_descriptor_stride_set one should use

gfc_conv_descriptor_sm_set.



Additionally, one could directly set 

gfc_conv_descriptor_extent_set (matching the current size variable) instead of

using gfc_conv_descriptor_ubound_set.



The only difficulty is to implement it such that the overflow algorithm works.

[Bug fortran/56800] [fortran-dev Regression] move_alloc_13.f90 failure

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56800



--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig  2013-04-01 
17:05:35 UTC ---

The stride needs to be set from the source; it currently

is taken from y (which is an empty type, hence the 0

for sm).