--- 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
--- 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
--- 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:
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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,
--- 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:
*
--- 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)
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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,
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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.
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
23 matches
Mail list logo
