From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-374428-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12941 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2011 19:35:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 12742 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2011 19:35:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BG,TW_GM
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; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:35:09 +0000
From: "anlauf at gmx dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:51:00 -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: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: anlauf at gmx dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51197-4-tmJNZpJiOv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51197-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51197-4@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: 2011-11/txt/msg01924.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197

--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> 2011-11-18 19:34:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > So it would be nice to actually write the SIG* information also
> > to stderr.
> 
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > So to get back to the stdout/stderr issue, in 4.7 the last line of the output
> > is not printed by libgfortran but rather by the OS (libc?) default signal
> > handler for that signal (just like happens with -fno-backtrace). So libgfortran
> > has no say in where it goes.
> 
> Harald, does this solve the issue? Or do you think that gfortran should replace
> the standard handler?

If this means writing

Program received signal 8 (SIGFPE).

to stderr (which is where the backtrace dump goes)
before the actual backtrace, this would be perfect.

(I could even live well without "A fatal error occurred!",
but I'll leave that up to you.)

No need to mess with anything else.

Thanks,
Harald