* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-25 22:43 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 2:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-25 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-25 20:01:14 UTC ---
Others can not confirm this so I am checking local configuration.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-25 22:43 ` [Bug fortran/45793] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 2:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 7:43 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-25 21:31:56 UTC ---
Resolved by enabling bootstrap
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-25 22:43 ` [Bug fortran/45793] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 2:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 7:43 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 10:27 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Last reconfirmed| |2010.09.25 23:16:59
date| |
CC| |kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|INVALID |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-25 23:16:59 UTC ---
I've got similar failures on cross sh4-linux. gfortran.log says
that f951 segfaults for these tests. gdb shows that the segfault
happens at
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0811130c in create_int_parameter_array (name=<value optimized out>, size=2,
value=0x8b18bb0, id=22, module=<value optimized out>,
modname=<value optimized out>)
at ../../ORIG/trunk/gcc/fortran/module.c:5345
5345 e->shape = gfc_get_shape (1);
When building f951, there was a warning
../trunk/gcc/fortran/module.c: In function 'create_int_parameter_array':
../trunk/gcc/fortran/module.c:5346: warning: 'e' may be used uninitialized in
this function
with my fedora environment. It looks that there is still something wrong.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-26 7:43 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 10:27 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 10:42 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26 03:33:09 UTC ---
This is the same location I was seeing the failure before. Now I have no
segfault, but valgind shows:
==17145== 48 (32 direct, 16 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in
loss record 48 of 459
==17145== at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==17145== by 0xCCBB27: xmalloc (xmalloc.c:147)
==17145== by 0x4F4504: gfc_getmem (misc.c:37)
==17145== by 0x4F6E0A: create_int_parameter_array.constprop.22
(module.c:5345)
==17145== by 0x4F7629: use_iso_fortran_env_module (iso-fortran-env.def:91)
==17145== by 0x4FBA2E: gfc_use_module (module.c:5541)
==17145== by 0x4FFCF4: accept_statement (parse.c:1574)
==17145== by 0x502A8A: parse_spec (parse.c:2588)
==17145== by 0x504818: parse_progunit (parse.c:3922)
==17145== by 0x50560B: gfc_parse_file (parse.c:4329)
==17145== by 0x53CBF7: gfc_be_parse_file (f95-lang.c:242)
==17145== by 0x83329F: toplev_main (toplev.c:955)
==17145==
Look at the code. e is declared in the function as typr gfc_expr *
Unfortunately no pointer is ever allocated for it. It is just luck that it is
not segfaulting!
static void
create_int_parameter_array (const char *name, int size, gfc_expr *value,
const char *modname, intmod_id module, int id)
{
gfc_symtree *tmp_symtree;
gfc_symbol *sym;
gfc_expr *e;
tmp_symtree = gfc_find_symtree (gfc_current_ns->sym_root, name);
if (tmp_symtree != NULL)
{
if (strcmp (modname, tmp_symtree->n.sym->module) == 0)
return;
else
gfc_error ("Symbol '%s' already declared", name);
}
gfc_get_sym_tree (name, gfc_current_ns, &tmp_symtree, false);
sym = tmp_symtree->n.sym;
sym->module = gfc_get_string (modname);
sym->attr.flavor = FL_PARAMETER;
sym->ts.type = BT_INTEGER;
sym->ts.kind = gfc_default_integer_kind;
sym->attr.use_assoc = 1;
sym->from_intmod = module;
sym->intmod_sym_id = id;
sym->attr.dimension = 1;
sym->as = gfc_get_array_spec ();
sym->as->rank = 1;
sym->as->type = AS_EXPLICIT;
sym->as->lower[0] = gfc_get_int_expr (gfc_default_integer_kind, NULL, 1);
sym->as->upper[0] = gfc_get_int_expr (gfc_default_integer_kind, NULL, size);
sym->value = value;
e->shape = gfc_get_shape (1);
mpz_init_set_ui (e->shape[0], size);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-26 10:27 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 10:42 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 12:31 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26 03:39:17 UTC ---
This patch untested gets rid of the valgrind error I was seeing.
Index: module.c
===================================================================
--- module.c (revision 164621)
+++ module.c (working copy)
@@ -5313,7 +5313,6 @@ create_int_parameter_array (const char *name, int
{
gfc_symtree *tmp_symtree;
gfc_symbol *sym;
- gfc_expr *e;
tmp_symtree = gfc_find_symtree (gfc_current_ns->sym_root, name);
if (tmp_symtree != NULL)
@@ -5342,8 +5341,8 @@ create_int_parameter_array (const char *name, int
sym->as->upper[0] = gfc_get_int_expr (gfc_default_integer_kind, NULL, size);
sym->value = value;
- e->shape = gfc_get_shape (1);
- mpz_init_set_ui (e->shape[0], size);
+ sym->value->shape = gfc_get_shape (1);
+ mpz_init_set_ui (sym->value->shape[0], size);
}
Can someone familiar with module.c see if this makes sense for the intended
purpose. I will start regression testing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-26 10:42 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 12:31 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 13:22 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26 04:17:19 UTC ---
The patch in comment 5 regression tests fine on x86-64.
Kazumoto Kojima, does this patch fix the problem for you?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-26 12:31 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 13:22 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 13:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26 07:41:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> does this patch fix the problem for you?
Yes. I've confirmed that all fortran regressions on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
go away with your patch in #5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-26 13:22 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 13:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 15:17 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 16:43 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26 07:49:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> When building f951, there was a warning
>
> ../trunk/gcc/fortran/module.c: In function 'create_int_parameter_array':
> ../trunk/gcc/fortran/module.c:5346: warning: 'e' may be used uninitialized in
> this function
I have never quite understood when -Werror is effective and when not!
(In reply to comment #5)
> This patch untested gets rid of the valgrind error I was seeing.
> @@ -5342,8 +5341,8 @@ create_int_parameter_array (const char *name, int
> sym->as->upper[0] = gfc_get_int_expr (gfc_default_integer_kind, NULL, size);
>
> sym->value = value;
> - e->shape = gfc_get_shape (1);
> - mpz_init_set_ui (e->shape[0], size);
> + sym->value->shape = gfc_get_shape (1);
> + mpz_init_set_ui (sym->value->shape[0], size);
> }
The patch is obvious and OK for committal. Thanks for fixing this stupid
copy-and-paste bug of mine!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-26 13:44 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 15:17 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-09-26 16:43 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26 12:30:57 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Sep 26 12:30:54 2010
New Revision: 164631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164631
Log:
2010-09-26 Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/45793
* module.c (create_int_parameter_array): Set the array value shape.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/module.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45793] [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures
2010-09-25 19:57 [Bug fortran/45793] New: [4.6 Regressions] Numerous test-suite failures jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-26 15:17 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-09-26 16:43 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-09-26 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45793
Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Version|unknown |4.6.0
Resolution| |FIXED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26 12:36:13 UTC ---
Closing
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread