[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal code
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 09:49 --- (In reply to comment #8) The bug seems to have disappeared from current mainline and is not present on gomp branch either. Should it be closed? It is fixed on both mainline and 4.1 (probably by one of Paul T's module patches a few months ago). I think we can close it. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|4.2.0 |4.2.0 4.1.0 Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal code
--- Comment #8 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2005-11-11 07:46 --- The bug seems to have disappeared from current mainline and is not present on gomp branch either. Should it be closed? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-27 17:13 --- *** Bug 21986 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||Pierre dot Asselin at ||seagate dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2005-01-28 11:14 --- Created an attachment (id=8089) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8089action=view) compressed testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Known to fail||4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-28 11:49 --- As always with modules, reducing is indeed painful. There are already many bugs reported with modules and gfortran (some of them even very basic), and this could probably be one of those. Unless you have spare time to reduce this, I advise getting others module-related bugs fixed before. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
-- What|Removed |Added CC||coudert at clipper dot ens ||dot fr http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2005-01-28 14:41 --- OK, I managed to reduce the testcase (phew!). Here it is: module ModelData implicit none Type ClTransferData integer :: NumSources end Type ClTransferData Type(ClTransferData) :: CTransScal end module ModelData module GaugeInterface implicit none contains subroutine output(sources) use ModelData real sources(CTransScal%NumSources) end subroutine output end module GaugeInterface module CAMBmain use GaugeInterface end module CAMBmain ~/tmprm *.mod ; gfortran -c bug.F90 bug.F90:16: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
--- Additional Comments From martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2005-01-28 14:43 --- (From update of attachment 8089) a reduced testcase can be found in the comments -- What|Removed |Added Attachment #8089 is|0 |1 obsolete|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
--- Additional Comments From coudert at clipper dot ens dot fr 2005-01-28 14:59 --- I think this is a duplicate of PR16861 (probably the most annoying bug on scientific codes these days, since they do use modules a lot). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
[Bug fortran/19669] [gfortran] ICE (segfault) on legal (?) code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-28 15:02 --- (In reply to comment #5) I think this is a duplicate of PR16861 (probably the most annoying bug on scientific codes these days, since they do use modules a lot). This is not a duplicate of PR16861. Here is the backtrace: #0 mio_ref (rp=0x416049e0) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c:1810 #1 0x0002fb9c in mio_expr (ep=0x41601b14) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ module.c:2201 #2 0x000301b8 in mio_array_spec (asp=0x416049a8) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ module.c:1693 #3 0x00030b20 in mio_symbol (sym=0x41604890) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ module.c:2685 #4 0x00031088 in load_needed (p=0x48d7c4) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ module.c:2892 #5 0x00031004 in load_needed (p=0x48d7c4) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ module.c:2858 #6 0x00031004 in load_needed (p=0x48d7c4) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ module.c:2858 #7 0x0003102c in load_needed (p=0x48d7c4) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ module.c:2860 #8 0x00031538 in gfc_use_module () at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/module.c:3099 #9 0x00033e78 in accept_statement (st=1115684864) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/ parse.c:1014 #10 0x0003444c in parse_spec (st=ST_USE) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:1581 #11 0x00035eec in gfc_parse_file () at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:2454 #12 0x0004c444 in gfc_be_parse_file (set_yydebug=1115684864) at /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/ gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:265 -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-28 15:02:46 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19669
