[Bug preprocessor/23884] New: failure in gcc

[Bug preprocessor/23884] New: failure in gcc

[segalemb at usp dot br]

When I tried to use gfortran40 to compile a softawre I obtained this error:

======================== module.F =============================
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-portbld-freebsd4.9
Configured with: ./..//gcc-4.0-20050602/configure --disable-nls
--with-system-zlib --with-libiconv-prefix=/usr/local --program-suffix=40 --wit
h-gxx-include-dir=/usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd4.9/4.0.1/include/c++/
--with-gmp=/usr/local --disable-shared --disable-libgcj --pref
ix=/usr/local i386-portbld-freebsd4.9
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.1 20050602 (prerelease) [FreeBSD]
 /usr/local/libexec/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd4.9/4.0.1/cc1 -E -traditional-cpp
-D_LANGUAGE_FORTRAN -quiet -v module.F -fworking-directory -fpch
-preprocess -o module.f
ignoring nonexistent directory
"/usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd4.9/4.0.1/../../../../i386-portbld-freebsd4.9/include"
#include "..." search starts here:
#include <...> search starts here:
 /usr/local/include
 /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd4.9/4.0.1/include
 /usr/include
End of search list.
 /usr/local/libexec/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd4.9/4.0.1/f951 module.f -ffixed-form
-quiet -dumpbase module.F -auxbase module -g -version -o modu
le.s
GNU F95 version 4.0.1 20050602 (prerelease) [FreeBSD] (i386-portbld-freebsd4.9)
        compiled by GNU C version 4.0.1 20050602 (prerelease) [FreeBSD].
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072
module.f:0: internal compiler error: in gfc_assign_data_value, at fortran/data.c:319
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.

===============================================================================

The proprocessed file is:

        .file   "module.F"
        .version        "01.01"
.stabs "/usr/multilevel4.0/src/",100,0,0,.Ltext0
.stabs "module.F",100,0,0,.Ltext0
.text
.Ltext0:
        .stabs  "gcc2_compiled.", 0x3c, 0, 0, 0
.stabs "int:t(0,1)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "char:t(0,2)=r(0,2);0;255;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "long int:t(0,3)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "unsigned int:t(0,4)=r(0,1);0000000000000;0037777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "long unsigned int:t(0,5)=r(0,1);0000000000000;0037777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "long long
int:t(0,6)=r(0,1);01000000000000000000000;0777777777777777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "long long unsigned
int:t(0,7)=r(0,1);0000000000000;01777777777777777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "short int:t(0,8)=r(0,8);-32768;32767;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "short unsigned int:t(0,9)=r(0,9);0;65535;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "signed char:t(0,10)=r(0,10);-128;127;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "unsigned char:t(0,11)=r(0,11);0;255;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "float:t(0,12)=r(0,1);4;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "double:t(0,13)=r(0,1);8;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "long double:t(0,14)=r(0,1);12;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "complex int:t(0,15)=s8real:(0,1),0,32;imag:(0,1),32,32;;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "complex float:t(0,16)=r(0,16);4;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "complex double:t(0,17)=r(0,17);8;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "complex long double:t(0,18)=r(0,18);12;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "void:t(0,19)=(0,19)",128,0,0,0
.stabs "integer:t(0,20)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "unsigned:t(0,21)=r(0,1);0000000000000;0037777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "byte:t(0,22)=r(0,22);-128;127;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "unsigned byte:t(0,23)=r(0,23);0;255;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "word:t(0,24)=r(0,24);-32768;32767;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "unsigned word:t(0,25)=r(0,25);0;65535;",128,0,0,0
.stabs
"integer4:t(0,26)=r(0,1);01000000000000000000000;0777777777777777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "unsigned4:t(0,27)=r(0,1);0000000000000;01777777777777777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "logical:t(0,28)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "logical2:t(0,29)=r(0,29);-128;127;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "logical3:t(0,30)=r(0,30);-32768;32767;",128,0,0,0
.stabs
"logical4:t(0,31)=r(0,1);01000000000000000000000;0777777777777777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "real:t(0,32)=r(0,1);4;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "double precision:t(0,33)=r(0,1);8;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "complex:t(0,34)=r(0,34);4;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "double complex:t(0,35)=r(0,35);8;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_integer:t(0,36)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_address:t(0,37)=*(0,10)",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_real:t(0,38)=r(0,1);4;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_doublereal:t(0,39)=r(0,1);8;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_complex:t(0,40)=r(0,40);4;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_doublecomplex:t(0,41)=r(0,41);8;0;",128,0,0,0
.stabs
"__g77_f2c_longint:t(0,42)=r(0,1);01000000000000000000000;0777777777777777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_logical:t(0,43)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_flag:t(0,44)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_ftnlen:t(0,45)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
.stabs "__g77_f2c_ftnint:t(0,46)=r(0,1);0020000000000;0017777777777;",128,0,0,0
        .section        .rodata
.LC0:

text
        .p2align 2,0x90
.stabs "MAIN__:F(0,19)",36,0,20,MAIN__
.globl MAIN__
                .type            MAIN__,@function
MAIN__:
        pushl %ebp
        movl %esp,%ebp
        subl $8,%esp
.stabn 68,0,20,.LM1-MAIN__
.LM1:
.stabn 68,0,2278,.LM2-MAIN__
.LM2:
        addl $-8,%esp
        pushl $0
        pushl $.LC0
        call s_stop
        addl $16,%esp
.stabn 68,0,2278,.LM3-MAIN__
.LM3:
        .p2align 2,0x90
.L2:
        leave
        ret
.Lfe1:
                .size            MAIN__,.Lfe1-MAIN__
.Lscope0:
.stabs "",36,0,0,.Lscope0-MAIN__
        .text
        .stabs "",100,0,0,.Letext
.Letext:
        .ident  "GCC: (GNU) f77 2.95.4 20020320 [FreeBSD]"

-- 
           Summary: failure in gcc
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.0.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: preprocessor
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: segalemb at usp dot br
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-14 18:54 -------
Can you attach module.F?

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
          Component|preprocessor                |fortran
            Summary|failure in gcc              |failure in gcc


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-14 19:29 -------
Reduced testcase:
      module param
      double precision mutdefc(8,5,7)
      data mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.0000d0/
     *     mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.0000d0/
      end module param

But this is really a dup of bug 17737

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17737 ***

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[segalemb at usp dot br]

------- Additional Comments From segalemb at usp dot br  2005-09-23 19:12 -------
Subject: Re:  failure in gcc

I and another person searched carrefully the source code and there 
is no repeated data commands.

           Sergio

Citando pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>:

> 
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-14
> 19:29 -------
> Reduced testcase:
>       module param
>       double precision mutdefc(8,5,7)
>       data mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.0000d0/
>      *     mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.0000d0/
>       end module param
> 
> But this is really a dup of bug 17737
> 
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17737 ***
> 
> -- 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
>          Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE
> 
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
> 



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[segalemb at usp dot br]

------- Additional Comments From segalemb at usp dot br  2005-09-23 19:27 -------
Subject: Re:  failure in gcc

I and another person searched carrefully the source code and there
is no repeated data commands.

           Sergio

Citando pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>:

> 
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-14
> 19:29 -------
> Reduced testcase:
>       module param
>       double precision mutdefc(8,5,7)
>       data mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.0000d0/
>      *     mutdefc(1,1,7) /0.0000d0/
>       end module param
> 
> But this is really a dup of bug 17737
> 
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17737 ***
> 
> -- 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
>          Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE
> 
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
> 



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-29 21:51 -------
Can you try to isolate a shorter testcase?  It's really difficult to see what's
happening in this large file.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-29 21:53 -------
Note I reduced it using delta so the all of my reduced tescase came exactly from the file and nothing 
else.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-29 22:10 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Note I reduced it using delta so the all of my reduced tescase came exactly
from the file and nothing 
> else.

This is not true.  Even if the constants appearing in the data statements in the
original code are replaced by their values, there will be no line that reads
  data mutdefc(...,7) /.../
as all initializations are of the form
  data mutdefc(...,1) /.../
 *     mutdefc(...,2) /.../
  ...
So you did more to the testcase.

Given the error location, I'm inclined to believe that it is indeed a duplicate,
but your reduced testcase doesn't prove it.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884

[Bug fortran/23884] failure in gcc

[segalemb at usp dot br]

------- Comment #9 from segalemb at usp dot br  2005-10-07 13:57 -------
(In reply to comment #8)

  I tried this simple test case:
      module param
      double precision mutdefc(8,5,7)
      data mutdefc(1,1,1) /0.0000d0/
     *     mutdefc(1,1,2) /0.0000d0/
       end module param

and the compilation go straight. Only when all indexes of mutdefc
where equal, the error appears. This indicates that this is not
a duplicate of bug 17737.
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Note I reduced it using delta so the all of my reduced tescase came exactly
> from the file and nothing 
> > else.
> 
> This is not true.  Even if the constants appearing in the data statements in the
> original code are replaced by their values, there will be no line that reads
>   data mutdefc(...,7) /.../
> as all initializations are of the form
>   data mutdefc(...,1) /.../
>  *     mutdefc(...,2) /.../
>   ...
> So you did more to the testcase.
> 
> Given the error location, I'm inclined to believe that it is indeed a duplicate,
> but your reduced testcase doesn't prove it.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23884