--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-05 20:23
---
Subject: Bug 18923
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Jun 5 20:23:44 2007
New Revision: 125342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125342
Log:
2007-06-05 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 01:21
---
Subject: Bug 18923
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 6 01:21:29 2007
New Revision: 125353
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125353
Log:
2007-06-05 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 01:23
---
Fixed on trunk. Closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-06-02 21:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR18923
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg00111.html
--
--- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-23 05:15
---
Subject: Bug 18923
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed May 23 04:15:25 2007
New Revision: 124979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124979
Log:
2007-05-22 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #18 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-05-21 16:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR18923
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01264.html
--
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 11:06
---
The testcase of comment #8 does not segfault on mainline (20070517) any more,
but still does in the 4.2 branch.
Messages for mainline (note the empty names in Error: '' at (1) is not a
function):
$ gfortran-svn
--- Comment #13 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 21:10
---
The testcase still crashes on mainline (and 4.1 and 4.2 branch) if I compile it
without -g or with --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0 -g.
Looks like there are some invalid pointers. Whether the
--- Comment #14 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 21:44
---
Although I can not observe a crash on my machine with either flag setting,
valgrind shows loads of
==32659== Invalid read of size 4
==32659==at 0x809432F: gfc_resolve_expr (resolve.c:3220)
==32659== Address
--- Comment #15 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 22:11
---
Eventually, I got a traceable segfault with this shortened testcase:
$ cat pr18923.f90
module FOO
contains
subroutine FOO
character(len=selected_int_kind(0)) :: C
end subroutine
end
Program received
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 22:53
---
There is no guarantee that you are hitting the same problem, but if so, this is
very helpful (sometimes :) )
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18923
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 23:52
---
Created an attachment (id=13582)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13582action=view)
Patch to eliminate segfault
This patch eliminates the segfault from the original test case and the last
test
--- Comment #10 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-01 20:28
---
The bug reappeared on mainline. But PR 27954 did not.
So either this is not really a duplicate - or Jerry's fix was incomplete.
Jerry, would you mind having a look? Thanks!
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-02 02:25
---
This bug was not a duplicate of pr27954. That was a fat fingers error that I
corrected in the PR header, but I can't delete comment #9. So as far as I know
this has not been fixed yet and never was.
--
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 03:26
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27954 ***
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-03 18:35
---
With the following testcase I still get an internal error:
=
module FOO
contains
subroutine FOO
integer :: I
character(len=selected_int_kind(I))
--- Comment #7 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-29 17:05 ---
I don't see an internal error any longer, closing as WORKSFORME.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 03:13
---
This is no longer giving a segfault on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
In file foo.f90:3
subroutine FOO
1
Error: MODULE attribute conflicts with PROCEDURE attribute at (1)
In file foo.f90:4
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 05:07 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
This is no longer giving a segfault on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
end
1
Internal Error at (1):
gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol
Maybe this is good enough?
There is an internal error
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18923
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18923
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-13
03:27 ---
Hmm, on powerpc-darwin built at -O0, we don't get a seg fault but on
i686-pc-linux-gnu with a
bootstrapped compiler we do.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-06
07:59 ---
With the following testcase I still get a segfault:
=
module FOO
contains
subroutine FOO
integer :: I
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-06
00:41 ---
Fixed in 4.0.1, we no longer get an internal error:
In file t.f:3
subroutine foo(i)
1
Error: PROGRAM attribute conflicts with PROCEDURE attribute at (1)
In file t.f:4
integer :: i
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22
19:26 ---
There is no segfault any more:
$ gfc pr18923.f90
In file pr18923.f90:3
subroutine foo(i)
1
Error: PROGRAM attribute conflicts with PROCEDURE attribute at (1)
In file pr18923.f90:4
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Keywords|
26 matches
Mail list logo
