* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2006-08-25 20:41 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2006-10-02 11:54 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gmx dot de @ 2006-08-25 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-08-25 20:40 -------
Created an attachment (id=12140)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12140&action=view)
Sample RESHAPE with missed array bounds violation
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
2006-08-25 20:41 ` [Bug fortran/28849] " anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2006-10-02 11:54 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 13:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-02 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-02 11:54:18
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
2006-08-25 20:41 ` [Bug fortran/28849] " anlauf at gmx dot de
2006-10-02 11:54 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 13:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 13:58 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 13:17 -------
I'll note that the Portland, Intel and g95 compilers do not see this issue
either. SunStudio does, at runtime.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 13:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 13:58 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2006-11-08 19:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gmx dot de @ 2006-10-11 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-10-11 13:58 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'll note that the Portland, Intel and g95 compilers do not see this issue
> either.
Well, I get a bounds violation with current versions of g95 (0.91)
on both Linux and Cygwin:
% g95 -g -fbounds-check -ftrace=full gfcbug39_bounds_check.f90 && ./a.out
Assignments with correct shapes after RESHAPE...
a(:,1) = 1.
b(:,1) = 1. 2.
...and with wrong shape (should fail with bounds checking on)
At line 17 of file gfcbug39_bounds_check.f90
Traceback: not available, compile with -ftrace=frame or -ftrace=full
Fortran runtime error: Array element out of bounds: 2 in (1:1), dim=2
With xlf 9.1 on AIX:
% xlf95 -qsuffix=f=f90 -C -g gfcbug39_bounds_check.f90
% dbx a.out
Type 'help' for help.
reading symbolic information ...
(dbx) run
Assignments with correct shapes after RESHAPE...
a(:,1) = 1.000000000
b(:,1) = 1.000000000 2.000000000
...and with wrong shape (should fail with bounds checking on)
Trace/BPT trap in gfc_bounds_check at line 17
17 a(:,:) = reshape (v(:), (/ 2, 1 /) )
(dbx)
With Intel I had a discussion about this, as ifc7 reports
a shape violation, and ifort8 and ifort9 do not. Intel
does not consider this a regression, and think that
reimplementing the old behavior in 8.x and 9.x would be
an "enhancement".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 13:58 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2006-11-08 19:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-08 20:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-11-08 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-08 19:44 -------
See also PR 29572 (matmul(a,b) and matmul(a,transpose(b))).
sunf95 and NAG f95 catch this PR and also PR29572 and also pack().
g95 catches this PR and matmul(a,b), but not matmul(a,transpose(b))).
ifort 9.1 (and 10.0) don't implement these kinds of checks.
For pack, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00243.html
I think there are two possible solutions:
Specific checks for known functions (reshape, matmul etc.), which is seemingly
what g95 does.
Or a solution for general functions, which seems to be what NAG f95/sunf95 do.
For the latter, a test case is (imagine also pointer, allocatable, in different
modules etc.):
program check
implicit none
real, dimension(2) :: r
r = foo(5)
contains
function foo(n)
integer :: n
real, dimension(n) :: foo
foo = 42.0
end function foo
end program check
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-11-08 19:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-11-08 20:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-08 20:48 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-11-08 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-08 20:08 -------
Postscriptum:
sunf95 already finds the problem in the program "check" at compile time.
For non-intrinsics (non libgfortran) routines, one way to do it is too do it in
the function called. (Internally called as foo (&parm.5, D.1358);)
That way one could even detect the problem if one moves the "foo" function out
of the "program" and uses an "interface". In this case neither sunf95 nor
NAGf95 find the error.
But what would be the best way for the library? Adding a check version to it?
Adding a if(flag) to it (may slow down)? Both NAG f95 and sunf95 seem to expand
those intrinsics (pack, reshape, transpose) rather than using a library call
and add then the check directly in the tree.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-11-08 20:08 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-11-08 20:48 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-02 14:30 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-04 18:30 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-11-08 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-08 20:48 -------
> In this case neither sunf95 nor NAGf95 find the error.
This is actually wrong; both find it.
In my example the original tree looks like (shortend): foo (__result, n)
ubound.0 = (int8) *n;
S.4 = 1;
while (1)
{
if (S.4 > ubound.0) goto L.1; else (void) 0;
(*__result.0)[NON_LVALUE_EXPR <S.4> * D.1347 + D.1345] = 4.2e+1;
S.4 = S.4 + 1;
}
L.1:;
Thus one should check
"ubound.0*stride.1+offset.2 > __result->dim[0].ubound"
and
"1 *stride.1+offset.2 < __result->dim[0].lbound"
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-11-08 20:48 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-02 14:30 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-04 18:30 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-02 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/28849] Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check
2006-08-25 20:39 [Bug fortran/28849] New: Missed array shape violation with RESHAPE despite -fbounds-check anlauf at gmx dot de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-02 14:30 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-04-04 18:30 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-04 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-04 18:29 -------
$ gfortran-4.3.3 -Wall -g -W -fbounds-check pr28849.f90 && ./a.out
Assignments with correct shapes after RESHAPE...
a(:,1) = 1.0000000
b(:,1) = 1.0000000 2.0000000
...and with wrong shape (should fail with bounds checking on)
Fortran runtime error: Incorrect extent in return value of RESHAPE intrinsic in
dimension 1: is 1, should be 2
Same for 4.4.0 and 4.5.0.
Closing. Please reopen if anything else is left.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work| |4.3.3
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28849
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread