Re: off-by-one buffer overflow patch

On 3/26/21 10:38 AM, dhumieres.dominique--- via Fortran wrote: I have proposed a similar patch in pr95998. I cannot commit to git!-( Thanks Dominique I do not see a patch in 95998.  Do you need help to do a commit? Jerry

Re: [Patch, fortran] 99307 - FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 execution test

Hi Dominique, What I meant was a test that would confirm the fix on all targets. BTW thanks for testing the patch! A Paul On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 17:29, wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I have your first patch in my working tree for some time. It works as > expected without breaking anything in my own

Re: off-by-one buffer overflow patch

I have proposed a similar patch in pr95998. I cannot commit to git!-( Thanks Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] 99307 - FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 execution test

Hi Paul, I have your first patch in my working tree for some time. It works as expected without breaking anything in my own tests. I couldn't readily see how to prepare a testcase - ideas? I think the testcase is already in the test suite. Note the problem also affects GCC10 with a new

off-by-one buffer overflow patch

This patch fixes an off-by-one buffer overflow issue. Please commit. diff --git a/gcc/fortran/misc.c b/gcc/fortran/misc.c index 8a96243e80d..3d449ae17fe 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/misc.c +++ b/gcc/fortran/misc.c @@ -124,8 +124,10 @@ gfc_basic_typename (bt type) const char * gfc_typename

Re: [PATCH 1/2] openacc: Fix lowering for derived-type mappings through array elements

Hi! On 2021-03-25T12:54:31+0100, I wrote: > On 2021-02-12T07:46:48-0800, Julian Brown wrote: >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-fortran/derivedtypes-arrays-1.f90 >> @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ >> +[...] >> +!$acc serial present(var3%t2(5)%t1%arr1) >> +var3%t2(5)%t1%arr1(:,:) = 6 >>

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR99602 - [11 regression] runtime error: pointer actual argument not associated

Hi Paul, I do not understand the !UNLIMITED_POLY(fsym) part of the patch. In particular, your patch causes foo.f90 to fail by wrongly diagnosting: Fortran runtime error: Pointer actual argument 'cptr' is not associated I have only did some light tests – but it seems that just removing '&&

[Patch, fortran] PR99602 - [11 regression] runtime error: pointer actual argument not associated

This patch is straightforward but the isolation of the problem was rather less so. Many thanks to Juergen for testcase reduction. Regtested on FC33/x86_64 - OK for master? Paul Fortran: Fix problem with runtime pointer chack [PR99602]. 2021-03-26 Paul Thomas gcc/fortran/ChangeLog PR

Re: [Patch] Fortran: Fix intrinsic null() handling [PR99651]

Hi Tobias, Please go ahead and commit the patch. I think that your analysis is correct about expr_null and that your patch is the best way to deal with the problem. Best regards Paul On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:54, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 23.03.21 18:34, Paul Richard Thomas