[Bug libfortran/31409] New: [4.1 4.2 4.3 regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[Bug libfortran/31409] New: [4.1 4.2 4.3 regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org]

See

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-03/msg00565.html

which also contains a patch.

Strictly speaking, this isn't a wrong-code because
the standard doesn't impose any requirements after
an error condition.  However, we do want to fix this.


-- 
           Summary: [4.1 4.2 4.3 regression]  Reading after
                    ERROR_SHORT_RECORD
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libfortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
OtherBugsDependingO 19292
             nThis:


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409

[Bug libfortran/31409] [4.1 4.2 4.3 regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-31 18:59 -------
The patch does not appear to fix this on 4.3


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409

[Bug libfortran/31409] [4.1 4.2 4.3 regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-01 04:25 -------
Created an attachment (id=13313)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13313&action=view)
Test case


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409

[Bug libfortran/31409] [4.1 4.2 regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-01 04:45 -------
I believe gfortran 4.3 is correctly handling this test case.  There should be
two error messages from trying to read the larger B(4) array from a record that
contains a smaller A(2) array, thus reading past end of record in those cases. 
After the errors, gfortran positions correctly to read the next available
record.

Gfortran behavior matches ifort.  It would be interesting to see what other
compilers do.

I have not checked gfortran 4.2 yet.  However, reviewing the code in transfer.c
(read_block_direct) I suspect 4.2 is OK.  The code we have now in 4.2 and 4.3
is as follows:

              /* Let's make sure the file position is correctly set for the
                 next read statement.  */

              next_record_r_unf (dtp, 0);
              us_read (dtp, 0);
              generate_error (&dtp->common, ERROR_SHORT_RECORD, NULL);
              return;

This is very similar to Georgy's patch with a call to next_record to correctly
position the file for the following record,

Clearly, from Georgy's data, 4.1.2 is failing

I think the fix we have now in 4.2 and 4.3 (or similar) should be backported to
the 4.1 branch.


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.1 4.2 4.3 regression]    |[4.1 4.2 regression]
                   |Reading after               |Reading after
                   |ERROR_SHORT_RECORD          |ERROR_SHORT_RECORD


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409

[Bug libfortran/31409] [4.1 4.2 regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409

[Bug libfortran/31409] [4.1 only, regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-18 06:45 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Gfortran behavior matches ifort.  It would be interesting to see what other
> compilers do.

Sun does the same as gfortran and Intel.

> I have not checked gfortran 4.2 yet.  However, reviewing the code in transfer.c
> (read_block_direct) I suspect 4.2 is OK.

I tested gfortran-4.2 and it has the same behavior as gfortran-mainline. 4.1.2
gives different results, however. I'm adding the outputs of different version
as an attached tar file.

> I think the fix we have now in 4.2 and 4.3 (or similar) should be backported to
> the 4.1 branch.

Keeping this open.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.1 4.2 regression]        |[4.1 only, regression]
                   |Reading after               |Reading after
                   |ERROR_SHORT_RECORD          |ERROR_SHORT_RECORD


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409

[Bug libfortran/31409] [4.1 only, regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-11 06:40 -------
Subject: Bug 31409

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri May 11 05:40:37 2007
New Revision: 124612

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124612
Log:
2007-05-10  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR libfortran/31409
        * io/transfer.c (read_block_direct): Backport from 4.3 trunk.

Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/libgfortran/io/transfer.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409

[Bug libfortran/31409] [4.1 only, regression] Reading after ERROR_SHORT_RECORD

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-11 06:41 -------
Fixed on 4.1.  Not a bug on 4.2 or 4.3


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31409