* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2021-09-16 13:58 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 18:55 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target| |x86_64-darwin,
| |x86_64-linux-gnu
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2021-09-16
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |wrong-code
CC| |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
also fails on x86_64 linux (with a segv rather than a ill).
Linux:
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/iains/t
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000000000040118c in MAIN__ () at dom1.f90:2
2 a=1.0_8
Darwin:
Process 14098 stopped
* thread #1, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason = EXC_BAD_ACCESS
(code=1, address=0x7ffeebbff900)
frame #0: 0x0000000100000ec2 t`MAIN__ at dom1.f90:2:7
1 REAL(KIND=4) :: a(16,1024,1024), s
-> 2 a=1.0_8
3 END
Target 0: (t) stopped.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-09-16 13:58 ` [Bug fortran/102366] " iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 18:55 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 19:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What is your stack size?
Does it help if you declare a SAVEd?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-09-16 13:58 ` [Bug fortran/102366] " iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 18:55 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 19:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-09-16 19:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2021-09-16 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> What is your stack size?
65532 kbytes
> Does it help if you declare a SAVEd?
The illegal instruction is gone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 19:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2021-09-16 19:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 19:23 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And you are trying to use 65532 kbytes long array on the stack, leaving no
stack space for anything else. Clearly user error.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 19:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 19:23 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 19:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> And you are trying to use 65532 kbytes long array on the stack, leaving no
> stack space for anything else. Clearly user error.
out of curiosity, why did this work previously? (was the array previously
allocated on the heap?)
we are not being very helpful to the user who made the error (neither Linux nor
Darwin give any stack overflow), but I guess that's hard to arrange robustly.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 19:23 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 19:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 19:59 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Seems it changed with r12-3129-gf95946afd160e2a1f4beac4ee5e6d5633307f39a
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 19:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 19:59 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 20:15 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Seems it changed with r12-3129-gf95946afd160e2a1f4beac4ee5e6d5633307f39a
Looking at the tree dump, it appears that there is a latent issue.
void MAIN__ ()
{
real(kind=4) a[16776325];
However, that standard says:
F2018 8.5.16 SAVE attribute
(4) A variable, common block, or procedure pointer declared in the scoping unit
of a main program, [...] implicitly has the SAVE attribute
My interpretations of the issue is that we miss to set the SAVE_IMPLICIT,
which is confirmed by running under the debugger, which shows that a
has SAVE_NONE.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 19:59 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 20:15 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 21:16 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Potential fix for comment#0:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
index bed61e2325d..54309646aad 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
@@ -709,6 +709,11 @@ gfc_finish_var_decl (tree decl, gfc_symbol * sym)
}
}
+ /* Implicit SAVE (F2018, 8.5.16 SAVE attribute, clause 4). */
+ if (sym->ns->proc_name && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.is_main_program
+ && sym->attr.save == SAVE_NONE)
+ sym->attr.save = SAVE_IMPLICIT;
+
/* Derived types are a bit peculiar because of the possibility of
a default initializer; this must be applied each time the variable
comes into scope it therefore need not be static. These variables
Works for me, but not regtested yet.
Does that help?
Of course that handles only part of that clause, and we need extended
testcases.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 20:15 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 21:16 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-16 22:45 ` [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> Potential fix for comment#0:
I'm getting many regressions for this change. Investigating.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 21:16 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-16 22:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-17 9:50 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-16 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10/11/12 Regression] large
|Illegal instruction with |arrays no longer become
|large arrays |static
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 22:45 ` [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-17 9:50 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-09-17 18:33 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2021-09-17 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Seems it changed with r12-3129-gf95946afd160e2a1f4beac4ee5e6d5633307f39a
The problem is gone if I revert r12-3129.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-17 9:50 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2021-09-17 18:33 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-17 18:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-17 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> The problem is gone if I revert r12-3129.
But then it regresses on pr98411. See for yourself compiling with -Wall.
Something like
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
index bed61e2325d..b022d818e82 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
@@ -743,7 +743,6 @@ gfc_finish_var_decl (tree decl, gfc_symbol * sym)
/* Keep variables larger than max-stack-var-size off stack. */
if (!(sym->ns->proc_name && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.recursive)
- && !(sym->ns->proc_name && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.is_main_program)
&& !sym->attr.automatic
&& sym->attr.save != SAVE_EXPLICIT
&& sym->attr.save != SAVE_IMPLICIT
@@ -757,7 +756,9 @@ gfc_finish_var_decl (tree decl, gfc_symbol * sym)
|| sym->attr.allocatable)
&& !DECL_ARTIFICIAL (decl))
{
- if (flag_max_stack_var_size > 0)
+ if (flag_max_stack_var_size > 0
+ && !(sym->ns->proc_name &&
+ sym->ns->proc_name->attr.is_main_program))
gfc_warning (OPT_Wsurprising,
"Array %qs at %L is larger than limit set by "
"%<-fmax-stack-var-size=%>, moved from stack to static "
disables the warning for arrays in the main.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-17 18:33 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-17 18:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-17 18:56 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-17 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
That LGTM, except formatting - && shouldn't be at the end of line per coding
conventions, but on the start of next line.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-17 18:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-17 18:56 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-17 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-17 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In decl.c:match_attr_spec we have:
5818 /* Since Fortran 2008 module variables implicitly have the SAVE
attribute. */
5819 if ((gfc_current_state () == COMP_MODULE
5820 || gfc_current_state () == COMP_SUBMODULE)
5821 && !current_attr.save
5822 && (gfc_option.allow_std & GFC_STD_F2008) != 0)
5823 current_attr.save = SAVE_IMPLICIT;
I tried to extend that to the case of COMP_PROGRAM, but:
(gdb) p gfc_state_stack->state
$162 = COMP_NONE
But when I add
program test
at the beginning of the file, I find
(gdb) p gfc_state_stack->state
$164 = COMP_PROGRAM
So this may be too early to handle arrays in the main.
Given Jakub's comment, I'll fix that and regtest.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-17 18:56 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-17 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-17 20:04 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-17 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51166eb2c534692c3c7779def24f83c8c3811b98
commit r12-3639-g51166eb2c534692c3c7779def24f83c8c3811b98
Author: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
Date: Fri Sep 17 21:45:33 2021 +0200
Fortran - (large) arrays in the main shall be static
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/102366
* trans-decl.c (gfc_finish_var_decl): Disable the warning message
for variables moved from stack to static storange if they are
declared in the main, but allow the move to happen.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/102366
* gfortran.dg/pr102366.f90: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-17 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-17 20:04 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-21 18:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-17 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Committed as per Jakub's LGTM and announced here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-September/056540.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-17 20:04 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-21 18:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-21 18:47 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-21 18:48 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-21 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
<anlauf@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7fbab3afca910c055676ebc566bf87c4d5a7372f
commit r11-9020-g7fbab3afca910c055676ebc566bf87c4d5a7372f
Author: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
Date: Fri Sep 17 21:45:33 2021 +0200
Fortran - (large) arrays in the main shall be static
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/102366
* trans-decl.c (gfc_finish_var_decl): Disable the warning message
for variables moved from stack to static storange if they are
declared in the main, but allow the move to happen.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/102366
* gfortran.dg/pr102366.f90: New test.
(cherry picked from commit 51166eb2c534692c3c7779def24f83c8c3811b98)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-21 18:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-21 18:47 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-21 18:48 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-21 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf
<anlauf@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3db5b1d23cbe4e4569e688a6dbc8b5b2c38588e
commit r10-10140-gd3db5b1d23cbe4e4569e688a6dbc8b5b2c38588e
Author: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
Date: Fri Sep 17 21:45:33 2021 +0200
Fortran - (large) arrays in the main shall be static
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/102366
* trans-decl.c (gfc_finish_var_decl): Disable the warning message
for variables moved from stack to static storange if they are
declared in the main, but allow the move to happen.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/102366
* gfortran.dg/pr102366.f90: New test.
(cherry picked from commit 51166eb2c534692c3c7779def24f83c8c3811b98)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/102366] [10/11/12 Regression] large arrays no longer become static
2021-09-16 13:53 [Bug fortran/102366] New: [10/11/12 Regression] Illegal instruction with large arrays dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-21 18:47 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-21 18:48 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-21 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102366
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on all affected branches. Closing.
Thanks for the report!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread