From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6769 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2010 10:28:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 6711 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jul 2010 10:28:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:28:00 -0000 Subject: [Bug fortran/44869] New: [OOP] Missing TARGET check - and wrong code or accepts-invalid? X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC Message-ID: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00830.txt.bz2 Reported by Satish.BD at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-07/msg00059.html The shown (cf. URL) program compiles without any errors, but segfaults when at run time. Two of my other compiles diagnosed the following failure (gfortran not): - In line 220, the access to tst_case => self%list requires a TARGET attribute for "self" (which is not diagnosed in gfortran). Ditto for lines 231 and 245. One compiler additionally complained that for - call suite%add("first_test", test_a) and call self%assert(1,2, 1233 , "generic_tbp.f90", "purposely failed") no specific subprogram could be found (I have not checked this) The other compiler, compiles and the resulting program does not segfault but prints: FFFF We have 4 failure(s). 1) first_test: generic_tbp.f90:1233 purposely failed: expected < 1> but was < 2> 2) second_test: generic_tbp.f90: 324 purposely passed: expected < 3.50000000E+00> but was < 2.67499995E+00> 3) third_test: generic_tbp.f90:1233 purposely failed: expected < 1> but was < 2> 4) last_test: generic_tbp.f90: 324 purposely passed: expected < 3.50000000E+00> but was < 2.67499995E+00> !!! FAILURES !!! Runs: 4 Passes: 0 Fails: 4 -- Summary: [OOP] Missing TARGET check - and wrong code or accepts- invalid? Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44869