[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #23 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-20 06:19 --- Created an attachment (id=20433) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20433action=view) fix for this PR and PR43266 The attached is what I intend to submit tonight, unless somebody approves it in the mean time. Obviously, the patch needs ChangeLogs. Also included is the fix for PR43266, which was first posted on March 27 and is very 'obvious'. Bootstrapped and regtested on FC9/x86_64 and RHEL5.4/i686 OK? -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #20429|0 |1 is obsolete|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #24 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-20 09:18 --- The patch in comment #23 works fine on my tests. Thanks for it. Also included is the fix for PR43266, which was first posted on March 27 and is very 'obvious'. Note for the record that it gives an additional error for PR43266 instead of the ICE: pr43266.f90:37.25: CALL obj%middle%proc_b 1 Error: 'proc_b' at (1) should be a SUBROUTINE -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #25 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com 2010-04-20 09:31 --- Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr Dominiq, Note for the record that it gives an additional error for PR43266 instead of the ICE: pr43266.f90:37.25: CALL obj%middle%proc_b 1 Error: 'proc_b' at (1) should be a SUBROUTINE Yes, indeed. This appears in the testcase and results from the module not being written. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #26 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-20 19:07 --- Subject: Bug 43227 Author: pault Date: Tue Apr 20 19:07:14 2010 New Revision: 158570 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158570 Log: 2010-04-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/43227 * resolve.c (resolve_fl_derived): If a component character length has not been resolved, do so now. (resolve_symbol): The same as above for a symbol character length. * trans-decl.c (gfc_create_module_variable): A 'length' decl is not needed for a character valued, procedure pointer. PR fortran/43266 * resolve.c (ensure_not_abstract_walker): If 'overriding' is not found, return FAILURE rather than ICEing. 2010-04-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/43227 * gfortran.dg/proc_decl_23.f90: New test. PR fortran/43266 * gfortran.dg/abstract_type_6.f03: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/abstract_type_6.f03 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_decl_23.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 12:12 --- I decided to take a look at this during lunchtime today. The source that I had to hand is the 20091203 4.5.0 snapshot. To my astonishment, this does not show the problem. I have had a quick look at the intervening gcc-cvs postings but cannot identify the source of the regression yet. Janus's patch of 20091211 is NOT the cause. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-19 12:33 --- I decided to take a look at this during lunchtime today. The source that I had to hand is the 20091203 4.5.0 snapshot. To my astonishment, this does not show the problem. I have had a quick look at the intervening gcc-cvs postings but cannot identify the source of the regression yet. Janus's patch of 20091211 is NOT the cause. AFAICR the problem is specific to the fortran-dev branch. From my logs and my habits, I suspect that it was introduced between revisions 156573 (Feb 7 2010) and 157148 (probably at or after r157133, i.e. on or after Mon Mar 1 09:23:35 2010). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 12:51 --- (In reply to comment #10) AFAICR the problem is specific to the fortran-dev branch. No, this is definitely not the case! Only the failure of comment #0 is specific to the branch. However, this failure is caused by an underlying problem with procedure pointers, which is also present in the 4.5 release (see comment #3). When searching for the origin of the regression, one should use the test case in comment #3 and look at the 4.5 trunk. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-19 13:06 --- When searching for the origin of the regression, one should use the test case in comment #3 and look at the 4.5 trunk. I keep forgetting this test!-(on i686-apple-darwin9, it compiles at revision 147438, 20090512, and fails at revision 150825, 20090817). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 13:21 --- I keep forgetting this test!-(on i686-apple-darwin9, it compiles at revision 147438, 20090512, and fails at revision 150825, 20090817). That's a start. I can see two (hypothetical) candidates in this range: * r150725 * r150823 Will try to find out if one of these is the culprit. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 13:46 --- (In reply to comment #13) I keep forgetting this test!-(on i686-apple-darwin9, it compiles at revision 147438, 20090512, and fails at revision 150825, 20090817). That's a start. I can see two (hypothetical) candidates in this range: * r150725 * r150823 I just checked r150724, which also fails. This means that both my guesses were wrong. But at least it bring us down to the range 147438:150724 (which is still three months of development). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #15 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-19 13:54 --- I just checked r150724, which also fails. This means that both my guesses were wrong. But at least it bring us down to the range 147438:150724 (which is still three months of development). I don't have access to IRC from my office desk. If you have access to it, you may ping Tobias and Jerry to ask them to look to their archives for something in between. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 15:13 --- Works: 2009-07-24-r150035 Fails: 2009-07-29-r150196 (Both trees were _not_ clean, but the first has the same patches as the second one, plus one more - thus, it is rather likely that the regression range is still correct.) I think the culprit is: Date: Sat Jul 25 11:56:35 2009 New Revision: 150078 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150078 2009-07-25 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/39630 * decl.c (match_ppc_decl): Implement the PASS attribute for procedure pointer components. [...] * module.c (MOD_VERSION): Bump module version. (binding_ppc): New string constants. (mio_component): Only use formal args if component is a procedure pointer and add 'tb' member. (mio_typebound_proc): Include pass_arg and take care of procedure pointer components. [...] -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 18:47 --- (In reply to comment #16) I think the culprit is: Date: Sat Jul 25 11:56:35 2009 New Revision: 150078 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150078 Close, but not quite :) It's actually r150047, as I just found out. However, this revision only introduces the first ICE in the test case: module m_string procedure(string_to_char) :: char1! ICE #1 ! procedure(string_to_char),pointer :: char2 ! ICE #2 ! type t_string ! procedure(string_to_char),pointer,nopass :: char3 ! ICE #3 ! end type t_string contains function string_to_char (s) result(res) character, dimension(:), intent(in) :: s character(len=size(s)) :: res end function string_to_char end module m_string The second one is already there at r150046. For this I found a window of 147438:148816 up to now. Will try to find out more. The third ICE is not present at 150047, but is apparently masked by another error: character(len=size(s)) :: res 1 Error: Character length of component 'char3' needs to be a constant specification expression at (1) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 18:48 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
I sort of doubt it. The problem arises because mio_symbol crashes in writing
the character length of the procedure symbol:
Breakpoint 1, mio_symbol (sym=0x9d02370)
at ../../fortran-dev/gcc/fortran/module.c:3560
3560 mio_typespec (sym-ts);
(gdb) print sym-name
$1 = 0xb7c8c9f0 char1
(gdb) print sym-ts.u.cl
$2 = (gfc_charlen *) 0x9d04400
(gdb) print *sym-ts.u.cl
$3 = {length = 0x9d04420, next = 0x0, length_from_typespec = 0 '\0',
backend_decl = 0x0, passed_length = 0x0, resolved = 0}
(gdb) print *sym-ts.interface-ts.u.cl
$4 = {length = 0x9d03000, next = 0x9cb6be8, length_from_typespec = 0 '\0',
backend_decl = 0x0, passed_length = 0x0, resolved = 1}
(gdb)
Note that the interface character length has been resolved, whereas the
procedure character length has not. This is why my patch of #7 works. I
believe that the problem must lie in resolve.c. For some reason, the symbol's
own character length expression is not being resolved.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-19 20:13 --- Note that the patch in comment #7 fixes the test in comment #3 when the 'type t_string' block is uncommented. But there is still a Segmentation fault when the line ! procedure(string_to_char),pointer :: char2 ! segfault is uncommented. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #20 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 21:16 --- Created an attachment (id=20429) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20429action=view) A provisional fix for the PR This needs cleaning up and FAILUREs of the gfc_resolve_expr's need dealing with. Once this is done and a testcase fabricated, I will submit it - tomorrow morning, I guess. BTW It bootstraps and regtests on trunk. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 21:34 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Created an attachment (id=20429)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20429action=view) [edit]
A provisional fix for the PR
Yes, the following parts are approved (they're exactly what I had in mind):
@@ -10292,6 +10298,8 @@
{
c-ts.u.cl = gfc_new_charlen (sym-ns, ifc-ts.u.cl);
gfc_expr_replace_comp (c-ts.u.cl-length, c);
+ if (c-ts.u.cl-length !c-ts.u.cl-resolved)
+ gfc_resolve_expr (c-ts.u.cl-length);
}
}
else if (c-ts.interface-name[0] != '\0' !sym-attr.vtype)
@@ -10805,6 +10813,8 @@
{
sym-ts.u.cl = gfc_new_charlen (sym-ns, ifc-ts.u.cl);
gfc_expr_replace_symbols (sym-ts.u.cl-length, sym);
+ if (sym-ts.u.cl-length !sym-ts.u.cl-resolved)
+ gfc_resolve_expr (sym-ts.u.cl-length);
}
}
else if (sym-ts.interface-name[0] != '\0')
Could you explain what the other stuff is needed for? I currently fail to see
that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #22 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-20 05:00 --- (In reply to comment #21) Could you explain what the other stuff is needed for? I currently fail to see that. Ignore the first bit in resolve.c, The change to trans-decl.c fixes the second segfault. The procedure pointers do not need a character length to do their job. So rather than making a decl for it, we just charge through. It needs a gcc_assert to make sure that we don't let everything through. Watch this space! Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-18 11:48 --- Marked as a 4.5/4.6 regression. -- dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.5 Regression] ICE: |[4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: |segmentation fault in |segmentation fault in |mio_expr|mio_expr http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-18 16:18 --- What about pr42274? Is it a duplicate or not? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 16:42 --- (In reply to comment #5) What about pr42274? Is it a duplicate or not? I don't think so. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 17:33 --- Created an attachment (id=20410) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20410action=view) Fix for the problem This needs to be regtested but I believe it to be bombproof. However, I should attempt to find out why the resolution is not being done else where. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
[Bug fortran/43227] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in mio_expr
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 18:30 --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) What about pr42274? Is it a duplicate or not? I don't think so. My patch fixes pr42274 comment #9 but not the main part of it. Janus is quite right that the bugs are different. The patch regtests OK, as expected. I will do some investigating as to the right place to do the resolution. module.c does not look right :-) Cheers Paul Cheers Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43227
