https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #28 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #27)
> Author: pault
> Date: Wed Nov 1 11:29:07 2017
> New Revision: 254299
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254299=gcc=rev
> Log:
> 2017-11-01 Paul Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #27 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 1 11:29:07 2017
New Revision: 254299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254299=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-11-01 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/80850
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #25 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Nov 1 09:33:26 2017
New Revision: 254293
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254293=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-11-01 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/80850
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #24 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 30 22:07:25 2017
New Revision: 254244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254244=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-30 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/80850
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #23 from DIL ---
Paul,
Great work! Thanks a lot for fixing this. This bug was a stopper for me for 6
months, so I am really looking forward to fully switching back to my favorite
gcc/gfortran compiler :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #22 from DIL ---
On the other hand, I have another test which also crashes in clone_object() for
the same reason, but does not involve gfc_vector.F90. It goes through line 710
of gfc_list.F90, function ListIterAppend(), where again a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #21 from DIL ---
Paul,
And as you have noticed, this characteristic construct is there
(gfc_vector:806) :)
call
this%container%vec_tile(q(4))%tile_batch(q(3))%batch_seg(q(2))%seg_elem(q(1))%&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #20 from DIL ---
So, if we for a second trust valgrind executed on an -O3 optimized binary, then
line 1402 of gfc_graph.F90, namely,
ierr=git%append_vertex(vrt)
should be the origin. The object vrt (type graph_vertex_t) is the object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #19 from DIL ---
On my Ubuntu 16.04, removing STAT= from the allocate() statement does not help
unfortunately, but it now crashes via a different path, although for the same
reason. I will experiment more to see if I can finally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas ---
It is the _len field of the unlimited polymorphic 'object' that is not being
initialized... somewhere.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #17 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14)
> > > PS If I remove the STAT= from the allocate, the code runs just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #16 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #15)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14)
> > PS If I remove the STAT= from the allocate, the code runs just fine in DEV
> > mode.
> >
> > Paul
>
> I have not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14)
> PS If I remove the STAT= from the allocate, the code runs just fine in DEV
> mode.
>
> Paul
I have not looke at this one. Have you tried with valgrind or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas ---
PS If I remove the STAT= from the allocate, the code runs just fine in DEV
mode.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #12 from DIL ---
Could you please tell me if there is a way I can check whether the dissociated
unlimited polymorphic pointer (class(*), pointer), which is set to NULL, is
indeed set to a clean state internally? That is, could you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #11 from DIL ---
The additional problem you observe with gfortran/7.1 described in the comment
"2017-05-26 22:43:21 UTC" seems to be another gfortran compiler bug introduced
in GCC/7.0. I have just filed a bug report for it (#81758).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #10 from DIL ---
Sorry, just wanted to clarify few things. I am still struggling with this issue
I reported. However I am not sure if you could every reproduce it (it seemed
like you observed a different issue)? Namely, if by running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8)
> Appears to happen between
Sorry,
> 241323
does indeed fail.
Didn't run the test often enough...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
236968 OK
248467 Not OK
Trying 242717 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to DIL from comment #4)
> Offset of zero is fine. I have never observed this SegFault before. I ran
> the test on multiple machines with GCC/5.3.0, GCC/5.4.0, and GCC/6.3.1.
> Also, as I mentioned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
I'm trying for some bisection.
I hope this is not going to turn out as complex as PR 79430 ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #4 from DIL ---
Offset of zero is fine. I have never observed this SegFault before. I ran the
test on multiple machines with GCC/5.3.0, GCC/5.4.0, and GCC/6.3.1. Also, as I
mentioned before, the test passed the VALGRIND check. Would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
--- Comment #2 from DIL ---
I have fixed all issues reported by VALGRIND so the code now is valgrind-clean.
However, the problem I reported still shows up from time to time (only when the
code is compiled with -g and no optimization: BUILD_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
28 matches
Mail list logo