From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23474 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2008 09:35:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 23288 invoked by uid 48); 24 Apr 2008 09:34:50 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080424093450.23287.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/35892] gfortran lost memory blocks In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "KnowlesPJ at Cardiff dot ac dot uk" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg01709.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #19 from KnowlesPJ at Cardiff dot ac dot uk 2008-04-24 09:34 ------- As the originator of this report, I just wanted to add a context comment in case it is helpful. This construction (common declared both in the module and in subroutines (contained or external)) is horrible, but one of our developers has found it to be the only reasonable way of dragging in a dusty deck. Although the compiler crash was reported, this is not our main interest, since the compiler seems to crash only with -g. Without -g, at any optimization level, we are getting wrong numbers at run time. Abstracting that from the 1.5 million line code for a reasonable test case to report will not be easy, so we are hoping that the fix to the compiler crash will be the silver bullet. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35892