From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7963 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2010 15:48:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 7954 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2010 15:48:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:48:40 +0000 From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/45827] mio_component_ref(): Component not found when mixing f90 and f03 in large projects X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:48:00 -0000 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: 2010-10/txt/msg02031.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20101024154800.AQdHgZ5NJIToSLRKhAlP02cUN5ORt6B2aKjJ3RzmYww@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 --- Comment #27 from Mikael Morin 2010-10-24 15:48:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #26) > I did not see any reply to my comment #19. Isn't it obvious there is something > wromg at that point in the module.c ? No, it's unreleased memory; it's harmless. Valgrind shows these _warnings_ with the --leak-check=full argument if one wants to track unfreed pointers. It means that gfortran could be improved to save a few kBs of memory, but not that we are using uninitialized data, writing to random unallocated places or doing whatever deserving an _error_. What's important is "0 errors from 0 contexts" in the summary at the end. Note that sometimes fixing a warning exposes genuine errors, so it's not just as simple as that. > Did I miss something in the thread here? What _I_ miss is a code to reproduce the error. :-(