Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

[Paul Richard Thomas]

Committed revision as 231319.

Thanks for testing the patch.

Paul

On 5 December 2015 at 17:41, Steve Kargl
 wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:20:54PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>>
>> The cause of the segfault, I believe, was an error: 'sym' being used
>> instead of 'progname': Could you please try the attached patch when
>> you have a moment.
>
> Patch fixes the issue of i386-*-freebsd.  Thanks for the
> prompt fix.  OK to commit (with ChangeLog, of course).
>
> --
> Steve



-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

[Paul Richard Thomas]

Dear Steve,

I'll take a look at this this afternoon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Cheers

Paul

On 3 December 2015 at 07:43, Steve Kargl
 wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:26:30PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:02:33PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > I'm stumped.  Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-(
>> >
>> > Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (internal compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (test for excess errors)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (internal compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (test for excess errors)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (internal compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (test for excess errors)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
>> > -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (internal 
>> > compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
>> > -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (test for excess 
>> > errors)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (internal compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (internal compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (test for excess errors)
>>
>> Well, if I change the order of the conditionals decl.c:4831, I
>> can get rid of the above FAILs.
>>
>> Index: decl.c
>> ===
>> --- decl.c  (revision 231219)
>> +++ decl.c  (working copy)
>> @@ -4826,7 +4826,7 @@ ok:
>>
>>/* Abbreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any
>>  formal arguments!  */
>> -  if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head)
>> +  if (formal && !head && sym && !sym->abr_modproc_decl)
>> arg_count_mismatch = true;
>>
>>for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next)
>>
>> --
>> steve
>>
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O   (test for errors, line 29)
>> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)
>
> These ICEs persist at line 4831.  In looking at the code, I'm
> now somewhat unsure what it should be doing.  In particular,
> there are 2 gfc_error_now() calls in the below:
>
>
>   for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next)
> {
>   if ((p->next != NULL && q->next == NULL)
>   || (p->next == NULL && q->next != NULL))
> arg_count_mismatch = true;
>   else if ((p->sym == NULL && q->sym == NULL)
> || strcmp (p->sym->name, q->sym->name) == 0)
> continue;
>   else
> gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in MODULE PROCEDURE formal "
>"argument names (%s/%s) at %C",
>p->sym->name, q->sym->name);
> }
>
>   if (arg_count_mismatch)
>   gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in number of MODULE PROCEDURE "
>  "formal arguments at %C");
> }
>
>   return MATCH_YES;
>
> cleanup:
>   gfc_free_formal_arglist (head);
>   return m;
>
> But, we return MATCH_YES?  I would expect setting m = MATCH_ERROR
> and jumping to cleanup.  That's ugly.
>
> --
> Steve



-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

[Steve Kargl]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:26:30PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:02:33PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Paul,
> > 
> > I'm stumped.  Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-(
> > 
> > Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
> > -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (internal compiler 
> > error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
> > -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (test for excess 
> > errors)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (test for excess errors)
> 
> Well, if I change the order of the conditionals decl.c:4831, I 
> can get rid of the above FAILs.
> 
> Index: decl.c
> ===
> --- decl.c  (revision 231219)
> +++ decl.c  (working copy)
> @@ -4826,7 +4826,7 @@ ok:
>  
>/* Abbreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any
>  formal arguments!  */
> -  if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head)
> +  if (formal && !head && sym && !sym->abr_modproc_decl)
> arg_count_mismatch = true;
>  
>for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next)
> 
> -- 
> steve
> 
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O   (test for errors, line 29)
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)

These ICEs persist at line 4831.  In looking at the code, I'm
now somewhat unsure what it should be doing.  In particular, 
there are 2 gfc_error_now() calls in the below:


  for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next)
{
  if ((p->next != NULL && q->next == NULL)
  || (p->next == NULL && q->next != NULL))
arg_count_mismatch = true;
  else if ((p->sym == NULL && q->sym == NULL)
|| strcmp (p->sym->name, q->sym->name) == 0)
continue;
  else
gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in MODULE PROCEDURE formal "
   "argument names (%s/%s) at %C",
   p->sym->name, q->sym->name);
}

  if (arg_count_mismatch)
  gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in number of MODULE PROCEDURE "
 "formal arguments at %C");
}

  return MATCH_YES;

cleanup:
  gfc_free_formal_arglist (head);
  return m;

But, we return MATCH_YES?  I would expect setting m = MATCH_ERROR
and jumping to cleanup.  That's ugly.

-- 
Steve

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

[Steve Kargl]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:02:33PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> I'm stumped.  Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-(
> 
> Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
> -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
> -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (test for excess errors)

Well, if I change the order of the conditionals decl.c:4831, I 
can get rid of the above FAILs.

Index: decl.c
===
--- decl.c  (revision 231219)
+++ decl.c  (working copy)
@@ -4826,7 +4826,7 @@ ok:
 
   /* Abbreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any
 formal arguments!  */
-  if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head)
+  if (formal && !head && sym && !sym->abr_modproc_decl)
arg_count_mismatch = true;
 
   for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next)

-- 
steve

> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O   (test for errors, line 29)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)
> 
> Using valgrind on 'f951 submodule_10.f08' yields
> 
> laptop-kargl:kargl[324] valgrind 
> ~/work/libexec/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd11.0/6.0.0/f951 submodule_10.f08
> ==74201== Memcheck, a memory error detector
> ==74201== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
> ==74201== Using Valgrind-3.10.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
> ==74201== Command: 
> /home/kargl/work/libexec/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd11.0/6.0.0/f951 
> submodule_10.f08
> ==74201== 
> ==74201== Use of uninitialised value of size 4
> ==74201==at 0x81DC20C: gfc_match_formal_arglist(gfc_symbol*, int, int) 
> (decl.c:4829)
> ==74201==by 0x81DE6F7: gfc_match_subroutine() (decl.c:6016)
> ==74201==by 0x8248FC0: decode_statement() (parse.c:378)
> ==74201==by 0x8247844: next_free (parse.c:1076)
> ==74201==by 0x8247844: next_statement() (parse.c:1310)
> ==74201==by 0x8258ACC: parse_contained(int) (parse.c:5038)
> ==74201==by 0x824870F: parse_module() (parse.c:5431)
> ==74201==by 0x82467D4: gfc_parse_file() (parse.c:5729)
> ==74201==by 0x82972E7: gfc_be_parse_file() (f95-lang.c:201)
> ==74201==by 0x87E4787: compile_file() (toplev.c:464)
> ==74201==by 0x87E43E4: do_compile (toplev.c:1951)
> ==74201==by 0x87E43E4: toplev::main(int, char**) (toplev.c:2058)
> ==74201==by 0x8FCC00D: main (main.c:39)
> ==74201== 
> ==74201== Invalid read of size 1
> ==74201==at 0x81DC20C: gfc_match_formal_arglist(gfc_symbol*, int, int) 
> (decl.==74201==at 0x81DC20C: gfc_match_formal_arglist(gfc_symbol*, int, 
> int) (decl.c:4829)
> ==74201==by 0x81DE6F7: gfc_match_subroutine() (decl.c:6016)
> ==74201==by 0x8248FC0: decode_statement() (parse.c:378)
> ==74201==by 0x8247844: next_free (parse.c:1076)
> ==74201==by 0x8247844: next_statement() (parse.c:1310)
> ==74201==by 0x8258ACC: parse_contained(int) (parse.c:5038)
> ==74201==by 0x824870F: parse_module() (parse.c:5431)
> ==74201==by 0x82467D4: gfc_parse_file() (parse.c:5729)
> ==74201==by 0x82972E7: gfc_be_parse_file() (f95-lang.c:201)
> ==74201==by 0x87E4787: compile_file() (toplev.c:464)
> ==74201==by 0x87E43E4: do_compile (toplev.c:1951)
> ==74201==by 0x87E43E4: toplev::main(int, char**) (toplev.c:2058)
> ==74201==by 0x8FCC00D: main (main.c:39)
> ==74201==  Address 0x8094 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
> ==74201== 
> 
> 
> I suspect that we have a sym=NULL dereferenc someplace.
> 
> -- 
> steve
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:35:35PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > Committed as revision 231072.
> > 
> > Thanks for the review
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > On 28 November 2015 at 17:19, Steve Kargl
> >  wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:35:54AM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > >> +
> > >> +   /* Abreviated 

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

[Steve Kargl]

Paul,

I'm stumped.  Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-(

Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
-fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
-fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O   (test for errors, line 29)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08   -O  (test for excess errors)

Using valgrind on 'f951 submodule_10.f08' yields

laptop-kargl:kargl[324] valgrind 
~/work/libexec/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd11.0/6.0.0/f951 submodule_10.f08
==74201== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==74201== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==74201== Using Valgrind-3.10.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==74201== Command: 
/home/kargl/work/libexec/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd11.0/6.0.0/f951 
submodule_10.f08
==74201== 
==74201== Use of uninitialised value of size 4
==74201==at 0x81DC20C: gfc_match_formal_arglist(gfc_symbol*, int, int) 
(decl.c:4829)
==74201==by 0x81DE6F7: gfc_match_subroutine() (decl.c:6016)
==74201==by 0x8248FC0: decode_statement() (parse.c:378)
==74201==by 0x8247844: next_free (parse.c:1076)
==74201==by 0x8247844: next_statement() (parse.c:1310)
==74201==by 0x8258ACC: parse_contained(int) (parse.c:5038)
==74201==by 0x824870F: parse_module() (parse.c:5431)
==74201==by 0x82467D4: gfc_parse_file() (parse.c:5729)
==74201==by 0x82972E7: gfc_be_parse_file() (f95-lang.c:201)
==74201==by 0x87E4787: compile_file() (toplev.c:464)
==74201==by 0x87E43E4: do_compile (toplev.c:1951)
==74201==by 0x87E43E4: toplev::main(int, char**) (toplev.c:2058)
==74201==by 0x8FCC00D: main (main.c:39)
==74201== 
==74201== Invalid read of size 1
==74201==at 0x81DC20C: gfc_match_formal_arglist(gfc_symbol*, int, int) 
(decl.==74201==at 0x81DC20C: gfc_match_formal_arglist(gfc_symbol*, int, 
int) (decl.c:4829)
==74201==by 0x81DE6F7: gfc_match_subroutine() (decl.c:6016)
==74201==by 0x8248FC0: decode_statement() (parse.c:378)
==74201==by 0x8247844: next_free (parse.c:1076)
==74201==by 0x8247844: next_statement() (parse.c:1310)
==74201==by 0x8258ACC: parse_contained(int) (parse.c:5038)
==74201==by 0x824870F: parse_module() (parse.c:5431)
==74201==by 0x82467D4: gfc_parse_file() (parse.c:5729)
==74201==by 0x82972E7: gfc_be_parse_file() (f95-lang.c:201)
==74201==by 0x87E4787: compile_file() (toplev.c:464)
==74201==by 0x87E43E4: do_compile (toplev.c:1951)
==74201==by 0x87E43E4: toplev::main(int, char**) (toplev.c:2058)
==74201==by 0x8FCC00D: main (main.c:39)
==74201==  Address 0x8094 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
==74201== 


I suspect that we have a sym=NULL dereferenc someplace.

-- 
steve


On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:35:35PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Committed as revision 231072.
> 
> Thanks for the review
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 28 November 2015 at 17:19, Steve Kargl
>  wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:35:54AM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> >> +
> >> +   /* Abreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any
> >
> > s/Abreviated/Abbreviated
> >
> >> +  formal arguments!  */
> >> +   if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head)
> >> + arg_count_mismatch = true;
> >> +
> >
> > OK to commit.
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
> too dark to read.
> 
> Groucho Marx

-- 
Steve

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

[Paul Richard Thomas]

Committed as revision 231072.

Thanks for the review

Paul

On 28 November 2015 at 17:19, Steve Kargl
 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:35:54AM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>> +
>> +   /* Abreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any
>
> s/Abreviated/Abbreviated
>
>> +  formal arguments!  */
>> +   if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head)
>> + arg_count_mismatch = true;
>> +
>
> OK to commit.
>
> --
> Steve



-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR68534 - No error on mismatch in number of arguments between submodule and module interface

[Steve Kargl]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:35:54AM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> + 
> +   /* Abreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any

s/Abreviated/Abbreviated

> +  formal arguments!  */
> +   if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head)
> + arg_count_mismatch = true;
> + 

OK to commit.

-- 
Steve