From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-343258-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26783 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 21:00:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 26774 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 20:59:59 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:59:54 +0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/47240] [F03] segfault with procedure pointer component
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47240-4-YHpZtWj7BX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47240-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47240-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:21:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg01197.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240

--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-01-12 20:59:31 UTC ---
> sorry, I can not reproduce this at r168655 (plus patch from comment #7), at
> least not on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Do you only get this error with the
> patch, or also with a clean trunk? I would expect that my patch should not have
> any impact on your test case ...

I am rebuilding a clean tree with only the following patch


diff -up ../_clean/gcc/fortran/resolve.c gcc/fortran/resolve.c
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/resolve.c    2011-01-09 22:13:56.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c    2011-01-12 21:49:39.000000000 +0100
@@ -4858,6 +4858,9 @@ expression_rank (gfc_expr *e)

   for (ref = e->ref; ref; ref = ref->next)
     {
+      if (ref->type == REF_COMPONENT && !ref->next)
+    rank = ref->u.c.component->as ? ref->u.c.component->as->rank : 0;
+
       if (ref->type != REF_ARRAY)
     continue;

diff -up ../_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    2011-01-08 20:18:07.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    2011-01-12 21:49:39.000000000 +0100
@@ -3044,7 +3044,8 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gf
               || (fsym->attr.proc_pointer
                   && !(e->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
                   && e->symtree->n.sym->attr.dummy))
-              || (e->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
+              || (fsym->attr.proc_pointer
+                  && e->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
                   && gfc_is_proc_ptr_comp (e, NULL))
               || fsym->attr.allocatable))
             {

(your patch for trans-expr.c does not apply cleanly with a copy&past from
safari, so I hope I got it right).