From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-372490-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6682 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2011 19:02:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 6664 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2011 19:02:44 -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; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:02:30 +0000
From: "jb at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/50937] STAT option with ALLOCATE statement on large arrays
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:02:00 -0000
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: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: jb at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status CC Resolution
Message-ID: <bug-50937-4-3OjJA6oB1E@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50937-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50937-4@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
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: 2011-10/txt/msg03234.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937

Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-31 19:01:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>     I've now tested the same program on a 64-bit CentOs machine 
>     with 16-Gb RAM, but wasn't able to reproduce the problem there:

Yes, because on a 64-bit platform the size calculation is done with 64-bit
integers, and long before such integers overflow the OS decides to deny the
allocation request (as can be seen e.g. by the different error code).

I'm not really seeing any bug here.