[Bug fortran/32310] New: Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[Bug fortran/32310] New: Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

I'm working towards reducing this, but it's coming slowly :(
The code attached leads to an ICE with:

$ gfortran -c -O0 qs_mo_types.f90
gfortran: Internal error: Illegal instruction (program f951)

The backtrace for the ICE is:

Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at address: 0xbf7fffec
0x000688fd in gfc_free_equiv_lists (l=Cannot access memory at address
0xbf7ffff0
0x44567150) at /tmp/gfortran-20070611/ibin/../gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:2621
2621      gfc_free_equiv_lists (l->next);
(gdb) where
#0  0x000688fd in gfc_free_equiv_lists (l=0x44567150) at
/tmp/gfortran-20070611/ibin/../gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:2621

I wonder if this was introduced by Paul's patch recent for multiple
equivalences. Paul, do you have any idea (I know you have no access to darwin,
but I can debug for you if you so wish).

I could not reproduce this on i386-linux (even with valgrind).


-- 
           Summary: Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: i386-apple-darwin8.8.1
  GCC host triplet: i386-apple-darwin8.8.1
GCC target triplet: i386-apple-darwin8.8.1
OtherBugsDependingO 29975
             nThis:


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-12 18:10 -------
Created an attachment (id=13692)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13692&action=view)
Testcase and module files that generate the ICE


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-12 22:03 -------
I can't reduce that any more, it depends on the module files being huge: if you
trim them down to a lower number of symbols, they ICE disapears. And I can't
reproduced it either on x86_64-linux.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-13 07:27 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I can't reduce that any more, it depends on the module files being huge: if you
> trim them down to a lower number of symbols, they ICE disapears. And I can't
> reproduced it either on x86_64-linux.

FX,

Are there any equivalences in the the sources for the modules and do they have
any data statements?  Even if they do, I am not sure that I believe that the
PR29786 patch is involved - how would the module files be compiled if this were
the case?

Paul


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-13 08:02 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Are there any equivalences in the the sources for the modules and do they have
> any data statements?  Even if they do, I am not sure that I believe that the
> PR29786 patch is involved - how would the module files be compiled if this were
> the case?

I think you're right, I'm sorry for the red herring. I just am completely
puzzled by this ICE. (Just to make sure, I rebuilt a compiler from scratch and
it still fails.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-17 03:03 -------
With valgrind, I am detecting a huge memory leak on x86-64.  I am reruning and
will post a log shortly. It takes a while to run the example in comment #1,


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-17 03:14 -------
Created an attachment (id=13716)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13716&action=view)
Valgrind leak check on example code

This shows the huge memory leak.  39 Mbytes! on x86-64 (Intel)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2007-07-13 07:17 -------
is this still failing ? Yesterday, I ran a valgrinded compilation of CP2K, and
it showed no errors (didn't check memory leaks). This has been on x86_64
though.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-15 00:31 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> is this still failing ? Yesterday, I ran a valgrinded compilation of CP2K, and
> it showed no errors (didn't check memory leaks). This has been on x86_64
> though.

Apparently, the ICE on darwin is related to a leak check, that can also be seen
on x86_64 (using valgrind --tool=leakcheck, IIRC). I won't have time to check
if it's still there before the beginning of August.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310

[Bug fortran/32310] Intel-darwin specific ICE on CP2K code

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-15 10:41 -------
cp2k compiles fine on i686-darwin as of today, and I can't see the memory leak
any more, so I'm closing this.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310