From patchwork Mon Apr 4 19:04:36 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Harald Anlauf X-Patchwork-Id: 52623 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork@sourceware.org Delivered-To: patchwork@sourceware.org Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384583858405 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 19:05:08 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 384583858405 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1649099108; bh=Q0drumN6Qv/7YRvUlcHDlv//E6OAf/PTEDYDrSeyuYE=; h=To:Subject:Date:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:From; b=mR2u52yTbciPk25O6Bftf4sD9/mPkmF9aAeJ5GCAMjN5cG4D/mrBKnR7w7u3MoZEx pvND5hs7vzsJb+fvq2CFA92pafKavHjy5dakoimc1h0re5auY72vJNHj24GmbJ34VR gRSugv0u/cCRDvgraTiuT92TWBbiQ97rjOJzSxas= X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99A123858D37; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 19:04:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 99A123858D37 X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [93.207.84.201] ([93.207.84.201]) by web-mail.gmx.net (3c-app-gmx-bs58.server.lan [172.19.170.142]) (via HTTP); Mon, 4 Apr 2022 21:04:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: To: fortran , gcc-patches Subject: [PATCH] PR fortran/105138 - Bogus error when function name does not shadow an intrinsic when RESULT clause is used Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 21:04:36 +0200 Importance: normal Sensitivity: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:nRmzadV1O6NFOxkpUmnTy3lP8WS3AaP1G/wIDUsiUpUPhgaup4CyxuMjQgmxCgZ9Za0W/ 0K9rrIPGfJeQcjBn9j4dHG4vCco9LQ7gEcJ+Jlwgi/YEG8ZbpMFQO5/dodSEjAmTrZdqy/9liY5a kf3K7khOZMLX2ZzozYMkj7l3bxkRpPYfJEeh0AYZNRuKdSly5ygwbu21KsXoVWe5pk7YWuMsBxhp hexhOcIqOmzjWqmLBo9PIG0veCQlNqfymVklbPLl4IBLGYdOSSdUAanongK/LpUniSd4loLN+IsZ FI= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Wu2c7XNIFow=:NQ2x9hVIBfU0ctyHqaAsNi F56VFJH+bEabmx6lRqeVEsFZO8tmUVDPi1gUx/Ms1zOQUjBPtHTPHiDejqfEDXCaGMZbfo++5 Oym6Pc8ktO8Qlsp5HY97R//1m1ZOAizB37iXSnInz0jn00zJFtTiu4oHCVC6gnEbxEEYbNoLy aI+arxrPIN8Lk/XBlQuvJDwy25B96XvPTFTHJ/fJq+I8Yn2c1koXFFjibLqx9UsO5OZye2l96 P3Tv02F73nU/FRLv1ZjrEebZ91Fazo+q4AWq6jLttRllz1ahri7zV6i5IcO1b2SvuxT7fHce1 1/dD02+yamU1xJ4lbGLKOxGu9BsOPLjQoUqXd1LNoXaFcO+05IL7bBRRn19hMZhXiVH2cR+uD iN0xDkvSpE5Aaa5tcPPy0eswd/iA1WcUGRHcFRfcCDFPWaxPPtUUFmuZf3G6oJJaLKOFy6rdh u7pLrrIntnlBsQAyjS66OXRC3WfTh6hnjAQzEz4q403O4p93iSLgoA7OHakHGIbjFTo6RUaYj 1eZJZu0dACOqjQF8QjO7FBFmF8pKKw6RfLa5QJ9vYf06QYn3KbxBpue0DX3Z8yKF6OUwWlbKH MOdTftjLkV6mc5HesC+9Zmm/oTr1BBR8wYoEJdP4Ozut71utylD1/aGVix6/eRQKrdTBLLube Ub4sSptDpvmUjA4IukKgUvYga204SVG1vioUgp06xfkKMp1GroY/dOwyl6qsq0C4mC3JBIz4E 6p4lY0uQPyJgR5ikxRfmBtkQ4DRg7yLjw0YrRMZkJWdaM+Oy+CXDAUW8wIg= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, GIT_PATCH_0, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Patchwork-Original-From: Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches From: Harald Anlauf Reply-To: Harald Anlauf Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces+patchwork=sourceware.org@gcc.gnu.org Sender: "Gcc-patches" Dear all, Steve's analysis (see PR) showed that we confused the case when a symbol refererred to a recursive procedure which was named the same as an intrinsic. The standard allows such recursive references (see e.g. F2018:19.3.1). The attached patch is based on Steve's, but handles both functions and subroutines. Testcase verified with NAG and Crayftn. Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? This bug is a rejects-valid, but could also lead to wrong code, see e.g. the PR, comment#4. Would this qualify for a backport to e.g. the 11-branch? Thanks, Harald From 4c23f78a41fad7cb19aeeeed84c99a73d761fa02 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Harald Anlauf Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:42:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: a RECURSIVE procedure cannot be an INTRINSIC gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/105138 * intrinsic.cc (gfc_is_intrinsic): When a symbol refers to a RECURSIVE procedure, it cannot be an INTRINSIC. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/105138 * gfortran.dg/recursive_reference_3.f90: New test. Co-authored-by: Steven G. Kargl --- gcc/fortran/intrinsic.cc | 1 + .../gfortran.dg/recursive_reference_3.f90 | 14 ++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/recursive_reference_3.f90 diff --git a/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.cc b/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.cc index 2339d9050ec..e89131f5a71 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.cc @@ -1164,6 +1164,7 @@ gfc_is_intrinsic (gfc_symbol* sym, int subroutine_flag, locus loc) /* Check for attributes which prevent the symbol from being INTRINSIC. */ if (sym->attr.external || sym->attr.contained + || sym->attr.recursive || sym->attr.if_source == IFSRC_IFBODY) return false; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/recursive_reference_3.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/recursive_reference_3.f90 new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..f4e2963aec2 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/recursive_reference_3.f90 @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +! { dg-do compile } +! { dg-options "-std=f2018" } +! PR fortran/105138 - recursive procedures and shadowing of intrinsics + +RECURSIVE FUNCTION LOG_GAMMA(Z) RESULT(RES) + COMPLEX, INTENT(IN) :: Z + COMPLEX :: RES + RES = LOG_GAMMA(Z) +END FUNCTION LOG_GAMMA + +recursive subroutine date_and_time (z) + real :: z + if (z > 0) call date_and_time (z-1) +end subroutine date_and_time -- 2.34.1