--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-25 08:41
---
Subject: Bug 37319
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 25 08:39:39 2008
New Revision: 142188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142188
Log:
PR fortran/37319
* parse.c
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-25 08:44
---
Patch installed.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 19:32
---
The problem still reproduces on the SPARC as of today. When the compiler is
rebuilt at -O0, it goes away; when decl.c and parser.c are rebuilt at -O2, it
comes back.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 19:32
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 19:59
---
This looks like a missing or wrong initialisation.
Confirmed, it's 'name' in match_deferred_characteristics:
char name[GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN + 1];
[...]
/* Set the function locus correctly. If we have not
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 20:24 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
This looks like a missing or wrong initialisation.
Confirmed, it's 'name' in match_deferred_characteristics:
char name[GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN + 1];
[...]
/* Set the function locus
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 20:33
---
This should probably be
m = gfc_match (function% %n, name);
if (m == MATCH_YES strcmp (name, gfc_current_block ()-name) == 0)
Otherwise, the 'm == MATCH_YES' is using an old value.
But in this
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 20:46 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
This should probably be
m = gfc_match (function% %n, name);
if (m == MATCH_YES strcmp (name, gfc_current_block ()-name) == 0)
Otherwise, the 'm == MATCH_YES' is
--- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 20:55
---
OK, I've found the code location in parse.c. Yes, I think the
above is probably correct. Note, I'm no longer a gfortran
maintainer, so I can't approve the patch and I haven't tested
it.
Understood, I'm
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-25 02:35
---
I will regression test on x86-64-gnu-linux and approve if it passes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37319
10 matches
Mail list logo
