[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

Jerry DeLisle  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle  ---
Fixed on trunk. Closing

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle  ---
Fixed on trunk. Will leave open for a bit to see if there is any fallout.

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle  ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Feb 23 18:38:31 2016
New Revision: 233641

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233641=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-02-23  Jerry DeLisle  

PR libgfortran/69456
* io/list_read.c (read_real): If digit is missing from exponent issue
an error. (parse_real): Likewise and adjusted error message to clarify
it is part of a complex number.
(nml_read_obj): Bump item count and add comment that this is used to
identify which item in a namelist read has a problem.

PR libgfortran/69456
* gfortran.dg/namelist_89.f90: New test.
* gfortran.dg/pr59700.f90: Update test..

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/namelist_89.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr59700.f90
trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
trunk/libgfortran/io/list_read.c

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle  ---
Created attachment 37707
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37707=edit
A patch to fix this.

This patch enables the error message.  It regression tests OK.

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle  ---
From the Fortran 95 Standard regarding exponents.

The basic form may be followed by an exponent of one of
the following forms:
   (1) A sign followed by a digit-string
   (2) E followed by zero or more blanks, followed by a signed-digit-string
   (3) D followed by zero or more blanks, followed by a signed-digit-string

An exponent containing a D is processed identically to an exponent containing
an E.

Form (1) allows the following in the test case of this report:

r3=1+1"   ! Treated as 1e+1? Yes this is valid
r4=1-1"   ! Treated as 1e-1? Yes this is valid

That being clarified, the first two examples are invalid because the required
digit-string must contain at least one digit.

r1=1+"! BUG: wrong result: Agreed an error may be helpful
r2=1-"! BUG: wrong result: Agreed an error may be helpful

In fact the last two cases here do result in a "bad_real" in read_real,
however, it is being interpreted as a NULL value. I have further work to do. 
Keep in mind that it is users responsibility to use correct input data.

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

Jerry DeLisle  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |jvdelisle at gcc dot 
gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle  ---
I will take this one.

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[kargl at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Josiah Schwab from comment #0)
> 
> I read the code for the function parse_real in libgfortran/io/list_read.c
> and this behavior appears to exist because the value '1+1' is permitted as a
> shorthand for '1e+1'.  This was also surprising to me.
> 
> I read the Fortran 2008 specification.  I had difficulty fully understanding
> it, but I failed to find a place where it said that exponent-letter can be
> legally omitted.  A look at the list of gfortran vendor extensions as well
> as a web search also failed to provide additional information.
> 
> 

See Table 10.1, "E and D Exponent Forms" in Fortran 2008 standard.

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2016-01-24
 CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed from 4.8 up to trunk (6.0).

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

[jschwab at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456

--- Comment #3 from Josiah Schwab  ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> (In reply to Josiah Schwab from comment #0)
> > 
> > I read the code for the function parse_real in libgfortran/io/list_read.c
> > and this behavior appears to exist because the value '1+1' is permitted as a
> > shorthand for '1e+1'.  This was also surprising to me.
> > 
> > I read the Fortran 2008 specification.  I had difficulty fully understanding
> > it, but I failed to find a place where it said that exponent-letter can be
> > legally omitted.  A look at the list of gfortran vendor extensions as well
> > as a web search also failed to provide additional information.
> > 
> > 
> 
> See Table 10.1, "E and D Exponent Forms" in Fortran 2008 standard.

Thank you.  If I understand correctly, that makes it clear that r3 & r4 in my
example do conform to the standard.

The behavior of r1 & r2 still seems wrong.  (But I am very inexperienced at
reading standards, so please do correct me.)