[fortran,8/9/10,Regression] PR59107 Fortran : Spurious warning message with -Wsurprising

Message ID 991c8528-75e2-8642-d9d0-002f1fd289dd@codethink.co.uk
State New
Headers show
Series
  • [fortran,8/9/10,Regression] PR59107 Fortran : Spurious warning message with -Wsurprising
Related show

Commit Message

Mark Eggleston April 27, 2020, 7:51 a.m.
Please find attached three slightly different patches based on a patch 
for PR59107 originally developed by Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> and 
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> for gcc-5. The last comment 
regarding the patch was on 2015-03-21 consequently the code has moved on 
somewhat and some additional changes where required resulting in 3 
slightly different patches.

Tested on x86_64 using make check-fortran.

OK to commit?

Change logs for master:

fortran/ChangeLog:

     Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> and
     Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>
     Mark Eggleston  <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>

     PR59107
     * gfortran.h: Rename field resolved as resolve_symbol_called
     and assign two 2 bits instead of 1.
     * interface.c (check_dtio_interface1): Use new field name.
     (gfc_find_typebound_dtio_proc): Use new field name.
     * resolve.c (gfc_resolve_intrinsic): Replace check of the formal
     field with resolve_symbol_called is at least 2, if it is not
     set the field to 2.  (resolve_typebound_procedure): Use new field
     name.  (resolve_symbol): Use new field name and check whether it
     is at least 1, if it is not set the field to 1.

testsuite/gfortran.dg/ChangeLog:

     Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>

     PR59107
     * gfortran.dg/pr59107.f90: New test.

The change logs for the back ports for gcc-8 and gcc-9 are included as 
part of the proposed commit messages at the beginning of the patch 
files. The back port dates will be updated when known.

-- 
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Comments

Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches April 27, 2020, 8:56 a.m. | #1
Am 27.04.20 um 09:51 schrieb Mark Eggleston:
> Please find attached three slightly different patches based on a patch 

> for PR59107 originally developed by Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> and 

> Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> for gcc-5. The last comment 

> regarding the patch was on 2015-03-21 consequently the code has moved on 

> somewhat and some additional changes where required resulting in 3 

> slightly different patches.

> 

> Tested on x86_64 using make check-fortran.

> 

> OK to commit?


Hi Mark,

OK. I just have one request: Could you specify (in a comment in the
header) what the different values mean?

Regards

	Thomas
Mark Eggleston April 27, 2020, 9:50 a.m. | #2
On 27/04/2020 09:56, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 27.04.20 um 09:51 schrieb Mark Eggleston:

>> Please find attached three slightly different patches based on a 

>> patch for PR59107 originally developed by Janus Weil 

>> <janus@gcc.gnu.org> and Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> for 

>> gcc-5. The last comment regarding the patch was on 2015-03-21 

>> consequently the code has moved on somewhat and some additional 

>> changes where required resulting in 3 slightly different patches.

>>

>> Tested on x86_64 using make check-fortran.

>>

>> OK to commit?

>

> Hi Mark,

>

> OK. I just have one request: Could you specify (in a comment in the

> header) what the different values mean?

Unfortunately I don't know, they were used by Dominique d'Humieres 
<dominiq@lps.ens.fr>.
>

> Regards

>

>     Thomas

>

-- 
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches May 1, 2020, 2:45 p.m. | #3
Am 27.04.20 um 11:50 schrieb Mark Eggleston:
> 

> On 27/04/2020 09:56, Thomas Koenig wrote:

>> Am 27.04.20 um 09:51 schrieb Mark Eggleston:

>>> Please find attached three slightly different patches based on a 

>>> patch for PR59107 originally developed by Janus Weil 

>>> <janus@gcc.gnu.org> and Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> for 

>>> gcc-5. The last comment regarding the patch was on 2015-03-21 

>>> consequently the code has moved on somewhat and some additional 

>>> changes where required resulting in 3 slightly different patches.

>>>

>>> Tested on x86_64 using make check-fortran.

>>>

>>> OK to commit?

>>

>> Hi Mark,

>>

>> OK. I just have one request: Could you specify (in a comment in the

>> header) what the different values mean?

> Unfortunately I don't know, they were used by Dominique d'Humieres 

> <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>.


OK, I've looked at this, and a comment could be something like

/* = 2 if this has already been resolved as an intrinsic,
        in gfc_resolve_intrinsic,
    = 1 if it has been resolved in resolve_symbol.  */

OK for trunk with that addition; also OK for the other branches once
gcc-10 is open again for regression fixes.

Thanks for taking up the patch!  There really are quite a few patches
lurking in the corners of the bugzilla system, and there is value
in getting them applied.

Regards

	Thomas

Patch

From 7d38721e418d179420161acf05d9b1a85a53fa7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:58:31 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fortran : Spurious warning message with -Wsurprising PR59107

This change is from a patch developed by

Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org> and
Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>

for gcc-5. The code has moved on since then requiring a change to
interface.c

gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:

	Backport from master
	2020-04-??  Mark Eggleston  <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>

	PR59107
	* gfortran.h: Rename field resolved as resolve_symbol_called
	and assign two 2 bits instead of 1.
	* interface.c (gfc_find_typebound_dtio_proc): Use new field name.
	* resolve.c (gfc_resolve_intrinsic): Replace check of the formal
	field with resolve_symbol_called is at least 2, if it is not
	set the field to 2.  (resolve_symbol): Use new field name and
	check whether it is at least 1, if it is not set the field to 1.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        Backport from master
	020-04-??  Mark Eggleston  <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>

	PR59107
	* gfortran.dg/pr59107.f90: New test.
---
 gcc/fortran/gfortran.h                |  2 +-
 gcc/fortran/interface.c               |  3 ++-
 gcc/fortran/resolve.c                 |  8 +++++---
 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr59107.f90 | 11 +++++++++++
 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr59107.f90

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
index b2e80a6b0a9..8ef8aea255d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
+++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
@@ -1587,7 +1587,7 @@  typedef struct gfc_symbol
   /* Set if the symbol is used in a function result specification .  */
   unsigned fn_result_spec:1;
   /* Used to avoid multiple resolutions of a single symbol.  */
-  unsigned resolved:1;
+  unsigned resolve_symbol_called:2;
   /* Set if this is a module function or subroutine with the
      abreviated declaration in a submodule.  */
   unsigned abr_modproc_decl:1;
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/interface.c b/gcc/fortran/interface.c
index 04850b0406c..689c30210d7 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/interface.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/interface.c
@@ -4940,7 +4940,8 @@  gfc_find_typebound_dtio_proc (gfc_symbol *derived, bool write, bool formatted)
   gfc_symtree *tb_io_st = NULL;
   bool t = false;
 
-  if (!derived || !derived->resolved || derived->attr.flavor != FL_DERIVED)
+  if (!derived || !derived->resolve_symbol_called
+      || derived->attr.flavor != FL_DERIVED)
     return NULL;
 
   /* Try to find a typebound DTIO binding.  */
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
index 69d877ed55b..d34d3dc66fd 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
@@ -1746,9 +1746,11 @@  gfc_resolve_intrinsic (gfc_symbol *sym, locus *loc)
   gfc_intrinsic_sym* isym = NULL;
   const char* symstd;
 
-  if (sym->formal)
+  if (sym->resolve_symbol_called >= 2)
     return true;
 
+  sym->resolve_symbol_called = 2;
+
   /* Already resolved.  */
   if (sym->from_intmod && sym->ts.type != BT_UNKNOWN)
     return true;
@@ -14601,9 +14603,9 @@  resolve_symbol (gfc_symbol *sym)
   gfc_array_spec *as;
   bool saved_specification_expr;
 
-  if (sym->resolved)
+  if (sym->resolve_symbol_called >= 1)
     return;
-  sym->resolved = 1;
+  sym->resolve_symbol_called = 1;
 
   /* No symbol will ever have union type; only components can be unions.
      Union type declaration symbols have type BT_UNKNOWN but flavor FL_UNION
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr59107.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr59107.f90
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a84328f0851
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr59107.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ 
+! { dg-compile }
+! { dg-options "-Wsurprising" }
+
+! There should be no surprising warnings
+
+program p
+  Integer :: nargs
+  intrinsic :: command_argument_count
+  nargs = command_argument_count()
+end
+
-- 
2.11.0