Fortran: reject MODULE PROCEDURE outside generic module interface [PR99036]
Checks
Commit Message
Dear all,
the attached trivial patch catches a MODULE PROCEDURE outside of a
module interface before we run into an internal error.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
This PR is marked as an 11/12/13 regression, so this is a candidate
for backporting.
Thanks,
Harald
Comments
Hi Harald,
This is good for trunk and for backporting.
Thanks for the rapid fix.
Paul
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 20:57, Harald Anlauf via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached trivial patch catches a MODULE PROCEDURE outside of a
> module interface before we run into an internal error.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
>
> This PR is marked as an 11/12/13 regression, so this is a candidate
> for backporting.
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
>
On 20.03.23 21:57, Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches wrote:
> --- a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
> @@ -9998,6 +9998,7 @@ gfc_match_modproc (void)
> if ((gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_INTERFACE
> && gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_CONTAINS)
> || gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL
> + || !current_interface.type
> || current_interface.type == INTERFACE_NAMELESS
> || current_interface.type == INTERFACE_ABSTRACT)
> {
First, I do not like '!var' comparisons for enum values,
only for Booleans/logicals and pointer.
Secondly, I am not sure that it is really guaranteed that
the value is 0.
I think something like the following makes more sense
and, as just tried, it also regtests (w/ your testcase included).
If you agree, feel free to package and commit it.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
index c8f0bb83c2c..233bf244d62 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
@@ -9996,7 +9996,8 @@ gfc_match_modproc (void)
gfc_interface *old_interface_head, *interface;
- if ((gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_INTERFACE
- && gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_CONTAINS)
- || gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL
+ if (gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL
+ || (gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_INTERFACE
+ && (gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_CONTAINS
+ || gfc_state_stack->previous->state != COMP_INTERFACE))
|| current_interface.type == INTERFACE_NAMELESS
|| current_interface.type == INTERFACE_ABSTRACT)
Thanks for working on this and all the other issues!
Tobias
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
Hi Tobias,
Am 21.03.23 um 09:31 schrieb Tobias Burnus:
> On 20.03.23 21:57, Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
>> @@ -9998,6 +9998,7 @@ gfc_match_modproc (void)
>> if ((gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_INTERFACE
>> && gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_CONTAINS)
>> || gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL
>> + || !current_interface.type
>> || current_interface.type == INTERFACE_NAMELESS
>> || current_interface.type == INTERFACE_ABSTRACT)
>> {
>
> First, I do not like '!var' comparisons for enum values,
> only for Booleans/logicals and pointer.
I was hesitating to do this and thought about adding an
enum value that it 0 numerically, but ...
> Secondly, I am not sure that it is really guaranteed that
> the value is 0.
... had assumed that this would be guaranteed.
> I think something like the following makes more sense
> and, as just tried, it also regtests (w/ your testcase included).
> If you agree, feel free to package and commit it.
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
> index c8f0bb83c2c..233bf244d62 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.cc
> @@ -9996,7 +9996,8 @@ gfc_match_modproc (void)
> gfc_interface *old_interface_head, *interface;
>
> - if ((gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_INTERFACE
> - && gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_CONTAINS)
> - || gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL
> + if (gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL
> + || (gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_INTERFACE
> + && (gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_CONTAINS
> + || gfc_state_stack->previous->state != COMP_INTERFACE))
> || current_interface.type == INTERFACE_NAMELESS
> || current_interface.type == INTERFACE_ABSTRACT)
>
Yes, that's a much cleaner solution. Pushed as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd282b16bfd3c6e218dffb7798a375365b10ae22
commit r13-6790-gdd282b16bfd3c6e218dffb7798a375365b10ae22
Thanks for the review!
Harald
> Thanks for working on this and all the other issues!
>
> Tobias
>
> -----------------
> Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201,
> 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer:
> Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München;
> Registergericht München, HRB 106955
>
From 9c59709fad91c99041a9cb770b98da17af01d260 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 21:50:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: reject MODULE PROCEDURE outside generic module
interface [PR99036]
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/99036
* decl.cc (gfc_match_modproc): Reject MODULE PROCEDURE if not in a
generic module interface.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/99036
* gfortran.dg/pr99036.f90: New test.
---
gcc/fortran/decl.cc | 1 +
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr99036.f90 | 9 +++++++++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr99036.f90
@@ -9998,6 +9998,7 @@ gfc_match_modproc (void)
if ((gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_INTERFACE
&& gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_CONTAINS)
|| gfc_state_stack->previous == NULL
+ || !current_interface.type
|| current_interface.type == INTERFACE_NAMELESS
|| current_interface.type == INTERFACE_ABSTRACT)
{
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+! { dg-do compile }
+! PR fortran/99036 - ICE in gfc_current_interface_head
+! Contributed by G. Steinmetz
+
+module m
+contains
+ module procedure s ! { dg-error "must be in a generic module interface" }
+ end
+end
--
2.35.3