diff mbox series

[fortran] PR106999 [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have function_type in gfc_class_data_get, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:233

Message ID CAGkQGiKkk4Hi3YCwqH46oG3_XZxt=K6vz5MdudZ0TjeQW_iojg@mail.gmail.com
State New
Headers
Series [fortran] PR106999 [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have function_type in gfc_class_data_get, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:233 |

Checks

Context Check Description
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm success Testing passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm success Testing passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64 success Testing passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64 success Testing passed

Commit Message

Paul Richard Thomas March 31, 2024, 1:01 p.m. UTC 
  This regression has a relatively simple fix. The passing of a subroutine
procedure pointer component to a dummy variable was being missed
completely. The error has been added. Conversely, an error was generated
for a procedure pointer variable but no use was being made of the
interface, if one was available. This has been corrected.

OK for mainline and backporting in a couple of weeks?

Paul

Fortran: Add error for subroutine passed to a variable dummy [PR106999]

2024-03-31  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>

gcc/fortran
PR fortran/106999
*interface.cc (gfc_compare_interfaces): Add error for a
subroutine proc pointer passed to a variable formal.
(compare_parameter): If a procedure pointer is being passed to
a non-procedure formal arg, and there is an an interface, use
gfc_compare_interfaces to check and provide a more useful error
message.

gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/106999
* gfortran.dg/pr106999.f90: New test.

Comments

Harald Anlauf April 1, 2024, 8:29 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Paul,

On 3/31/24 15:01, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> This regression has a relatively simple fix. The passing of a subroutine
> procedure pointer component to a dummy variable was being missed
> completely. The error has been added. Conversely, an error was generated
> for a procedure pointer variable but no use was being made of the
> interface, if one was available. This has been corrected.
>
> OK for mainline and backporting in a couple of weeks?

this is all OK.

Thanks for the patch!

Harald

> Paul
>
> Fortran: Add error for subroutine passed to a variable dummy [PR106999]
>
> 2024-03-31  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> gcc/fortran
> PR fortran/106999
> *interface.cc (gfc_compare_interfaces): Add error for a
> subroutine proc pointer passed to a variable formal.
> (compare_parameter): If a procedure pointer is being passed to
> a non-procedure formal arg, and there is an an interface, use
> gfc_compare_interfaces to check and provide a more useful error
> message.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> PR fortran/106999
> * gfortran.dg/pr106999.f90: New test.
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc
index 7b86a338bc1..bf151dae743 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/interface.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/interface.cc
@@ -1789,6 +1789,14 @@  gfc_compare_interfaces (gfc_symbol *s1, gfc_symbol *s2, const char *name2,
       return false;
     }

+  if (s2->attr.subroutine && s1->attr.flavor == FL_VARIABLE)
+    {
+      if (errmsg != NULL)
+	snprintf (errmsg, err_len, "subroutine proc pointer '%s' passed "
+		  "to dummy variable '%s'", name2, s1->name);
+      return false;
+    }
+
   /* Do strict checks on all characteristics
      (for dummy procedures and procedure pointer assignments).  */
   if (!generic_flag && strict_flag)
@@ -2425,12 +2433,22 @@  compare_parameter (gfc_symbol *formal, gfc_expr *actual,
     {
       gfc_symbol *act_sym = actual->symtree->n.sym;

-      if (formal->attr.flavor != FL_PROCEDURE)
+      if (formal->attr.flavor != FL_PROCEDURE && !act_sym->ts.interface)
 	{
 	  if (where)
 	    gfc_error ("Invalid procedure argument at %L", &actual->where);
 	  return false;
 	}
+      else if (act_sym->ts.interface
+	       && !gfc_compare_interfaces (formal, act_sym->ts.interface,
+					   act_sym->name, 0, 1, err,
+					   sizeof(err),NULL, NULL))
+	{
+	  if (where)
+	    gfc_error_opt (0, "Interface mismatch in dummy procedure %qs at %L:"
+			   " %s", formal->name, &actual->where, err);
+	  return false;
+	}

       if (!gfc_compare_interfaces (formal, act_sym, act_sym->name, 0, 1, err,
 				   sizeof(err), NULL, NULL))
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr106999.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr106999.f90
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b3f1d7741f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr106999.f90
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ 
+! { dg-do compile }
+! Test the fix for PR106999
+! Contributed by Gerhard Steinmetz  <gscfq@t-online.de>
+program p
+   type t
+      integer :: i
+      procedure(g), pointer :: f
+   end type
+   class(t), allocatable :: y, z
+   procedure(g), pointer :: ff
+   allocate (z)
+   z%i = 42
+   z%f => g
+   ff => g
+   call r(z%f)
+   call s(z%f) ! { dg-error "Interface mismatch in dummy procedure" }
+   call s(ff)  ! { dg-error "Interface mismatch in dummy procedure" }
+contains
+   subroutine g(x)
+      class(t) :: x
+      x%i = 84
+   end
+   subroutine r(x)
+      procedure(g) :: x
+      print *, "in r"
+      allocate (y)
+      call x(y)
+      print *, y%i
+   end
+   subroutine s(x)
+      class(*) :: x
+   end subroutine
+end