[Bug fortran/36553] New: [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[Bug fortran/36553] New: [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

At revision 136821 the following code:

!module CHECK_SEM

! Submitted by Walt Brainerd, The Fortran Company
! GNU Fortran 95 (GCC 4.1.0 20050322 (experimental))
! Windows XP

! Produces "a.exe has encountered a problem" window.

! Same problem if comments are removed so that
!    the function is in a module.

!  contains

function CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 (EXPECTED, COMPUTED)
  integer(4), dimension(:), intent(in) ::  EXPECTED, COMPUTED
  logical  :: CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1
  CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 = all(COMPUTED == EXPECTED)
end function CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1

!end module CHECK_SEM

program array_test
!use CHECK_SEM
logical :: CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1

  integer,dimension(-1:1,-1:1)      :: mis1=1.1 
  logical,dimension(-1:1,-1:1)      :: ml2=.true.

  print *, CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 (sum(mis1,dim=1,mask=ml2), (/8,5,12/))

end program array_test

gives a "Bus error". The executable runs fine if I revert the patch.


-- 
           Summary: [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-06-17 19:33 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> At revision 136821 the following code:

Dominique,

It runs fine for me on x86_ia64 - did you use any options?

I've CC'd Jerry, since 136821 was his.

Paul


-- 

pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-06-17 22:04 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> It runs fine for me on x86_ia64 - did you use any options?

I have set the build to i686-apple-darwin9. The bus error comes with default
(-m32 and no options), the test passes with -m64.


-- 

dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  GCC build triplet|                            |i686-apple-darwin9
   GCC host triplet|                            |i686-apple-darwin9
 GCC target triplet|                            |i686-apple-darwin9


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-06-18 00:18 -------
I can reproduce this on x86-64-linux by using the -m32 option.


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2008-06-18 00:18:57
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-06-18 04:27 -------
When I revert just the files in my patch, the test case passes with -m32 and
segfaults on -m64 at run time.  I don't think this is related to 136821
directly.
Looking at the -fdump-tree-original between -m32 and -m64,  there are a large
number of variables that change from kind=4 with -m32 to kind=8 with -m64. 
Something is definitely out of whack.

This is looking like a Hiesenbug.  I am going to need help to find this.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-06-18 04:57 -------
OK, with r136820

$ gfc -m64 -fbounds-check pr36553.f90
$ ./a.out 
At line 17 of file pr36553.f90
Fortran runtime error: Array bound mismatch, size mismatch for dimension 1 of
array 'expected' (0/3329063047920841327)

$ gfc -m32 -fbounds-check pr36553.f90
$ ./a.out 
 T


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] [4.4 Regression] regression due to revision 136821

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-06-18 05:33 -------
I get in valgrind (trunk revision 136838) with -m32 and -m64 on x86-64-linux:

==3145== Invalid read of size 4
==3145==    at 0x804876D: check_integer4_rank1_ (test.f90:14)
==3145==    by 0x80489E1: MAIN__ (test.f90:29)
==3145==    by 0x8048AF8: main (fmain.c:21)

However, this is not different from 4.3. Using NAG f95, I get:
  Warning: line 26: REAL value for INTEGER PARAMETER
  Error:Explicit interface required for CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 from ARRAY_TEST -
argument EXPECTED (no. 1) is an assumed-shape array

And for the contained procedure, I don't see any valgrind errors.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] Missing interface not detected in call to same file function

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-06-18 07:15 -------
(In reply to comment #6)

> However, this is not different from 4.3. Using NAG f95, I get:
>   Warning: line 26: REAL value for INTEGER PARAMETER
>   Error:Explicit interface required for CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 from ARRAY_TEST -
> argument EXPECTED (no. 1) is an assumed-shape array
duuuh!

Lahey...

Compiling program unit CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 at line 1:
Compiling program unit array_test at line 19:
  2615-S: "SOURCE.F90", line 29: The procedure 'CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1' shall
have an explicit interface, because it contains the assumed shape array
'EXPECTED'. The previous definition is in 'line 14'.
  2615-S: "SOURCE.F90", line 29: The procedure 'CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1' shall
have an explicit interface, because it contains the assumed shape array
'COMPUTED'. The previous definition is in 'line 14'.
Encountered 2 errors, 0 warnings, 0 informations in file SOURCE.F90.
Compiling file SOURCE.F90.

Another case where same file checking would come in handy.

Compiling with -m32 on my system reproduces the bus error.  Adding the
interface, thusly:

!module CHECK_SEM

! Submitted by Walt Brainerd, The Fortran Company
! GNU Fortran 95 (GCC 4.1.0 20050322 (experimental))
! Windows XP

! Produces "a.exe has encountered a problem" window.

! Same problem if comments are removed so that
!    the function is in a module.

!  contains

function CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 (EXPECTED, COMPUTED)
  integer(4), dimension(:), intent(in) ::  EXPECTED, COMPUTED
  logical  :: CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1
  CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 = all(COMPUTED == EXPECTED)
end function CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1

!end module CHECK_SEM

program array_test
!use CHECK_SEM
  logical :: CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1

  integer,dimension(-1:1,-1:1)      :: mis1=1 
  logical,dimension(-1:1,-1:1)      :: ml2=.true.
  interface
    function CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 (EXPECTED, COMPUTED)
      integer(4), dimension(:), intent(in) ::  EXPECTED, COMPUTED
      logical  :: CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1
    end function CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1
  end interface

  print *, CHECK_INTEGER4_RANK1 (sum(mis1,dim=1,mask=ml2), (/8,5,12/))

end program array_test

Makes it work fine for -m32 and -m64.

Dominique, if that does not do it for you, remodify the summary line and
keywords as appropriate.

Cheers

Paul

PS Jerry, sorry for fingering you falsely! :) 


-- 

pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic, ice-on-invalid-
                   |                            |code
            Summary|[4.4 Regression] regression |Missing interface not
                   |due to revision 136821      |detected in call to same
                   |                            |file function


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] Missing interface not detected in call to same file function

[dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-10 20:50 -------
Dominique, any improvements here with -fwhole-file?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] Missing interface not detected in call to same file function

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-04-10 22:41 -------
> Dominique, any improvements here with -fwhole-file?

AFAICT the answer is no: the invalid code in comment #0 is not rejected (see
comment #6 for the kind of expected diagnostic).

I think this PR should be closed as invalid and a new one open against
-fwhole-file with the keyword accept-invalid.

BTW the "ice-on-invalid-code" does not seem correct: the "seg fault" (or "bus
error") occurs at run time depending on the flags (and the revision). Note also
that the result is mostly 'T' when the compiled code is executed (instead if
'F' when the comments for 'module' are removed) .


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] Missing interface not detected in call to same file function

[dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-23 19:06 -------
Still an issue with gcc version 4.6.0 20100520 (experimental) (GCC)

Replaced ice-on-invalid with accepts-invalid keyword. The compiler is fine, the
produced binary isn't - there should be no binary.

Smaller testcase:
  real :: f
  print *, f( (/ 0.0, 1.0/) )
end

function f(x)
  real, intent(in) ::  x(:)  ! assumed shape requires explicit interface in
caller
  real :: f(size(x))
  f = sin(x)                 ! array valued result requires explicit interface
in caller
end function


What bothers me: how are we supposed to determine if an explicit interface
would be required, if the function in questions is in a different compilation
unit? Can -fwhole-program/-flto, or whatever else looks at the whole picture,
tweaked to do that?


-- 

dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code         |accepts-invalid


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] Missing interface not detected in call to same file function

[dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-23 22:34 -------


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31346 ***


-- 

dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] Missing interface not detected in call to same file function

[paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1271 bytes --]



------- Comment #12 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com  2010-05-24 08:31 -------
Subject: Re:  Missing interface not detected in call to 
        same file function

With -fwhole-file, we get for the short testcase:

../pr36553/pr36553.f90:2.9:

 print *, f( (/ 0.0, 1.0/) )
         1
Error: The reference to function 'f' at (1) either needs an explicit
INTERFACE or the rank is incorrect

Paul

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:34 AM, dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #11 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-23 22:34 -------
>
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31346 ***
>
>
> --
>
> dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
>
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
>         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553

[Bug fortran/36553] Missing interface not detected in call to same file function

[dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-24 10:44 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> With -fwhole-file, we get for the short testcase:
> 
> ../pr36553/pr36553.f90:2.9:
> 
>  print *, f( (/ 0.0, 1.0/) )
>          1
> Error: The reference to function 'f' at (1) either needs an explicit
> INTERFACE or the rank is incorrect

Argh! How did I miss that?

Ok, if the array valued result is removed, it goes again unnoticed:

  real :: f
  print *, f( (/ 0.0, 1.0/) )
end

function f(x)
  real, intent(in) ::  x(:) ! assumed shape requires explicit interface in
caller
  real :: f
  f = sum(x)
end function


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36553