* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2011-11-17 20:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-17 20:55 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-17 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-17 20:04:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Hi,
>
> the backtrace facility is less useful with 4.7 than with 4.6.
>
> Example:
>
> program backtrace
> implicit none
> print *, foo (0.0)
> contains
> function foo (x)
> real, intent (in) :: x
> real :: foo
> foo = 1 / x
> end function foo
> end program backtrace
>
>
> gfortran 4.7 (svn revision 181390, arch is i686-pc-linux-gnu):
>
> % /opt/gcc/4.7/bin/gfortran -g -fbacktrace gfcbug113.f90
> -ffpe-trap=zero,overflow,invalid -static-libgfortran
> % ./a.out
>
> A fatal error occurred! Backtrace for this error:
> #0 0x80588BF in _gfortrani_show_backtrace at backtrace.c:261
> #1 0x80494B7 in _gfortrani_backtrace_handler at compile_options.c:46
> #2 0xFFFFE3FF
> #3 0x80493B3 in foo at gfcbug113.f90:8
> #4 0x804940B in backtrace at gfcbug113.f90:3
> Floating point exception (core dumped)
>
>
> With gfortran 4.6:
>
> Program received signal 8 (SIGFPE): Floating-point exception.
>
> Backtrace for this error:
> + [0xffffe400]
> + function foo (0x80494B3)
> at line 8 of file gfcbug113.f90
> + function backtrace (0x804950C)
> at line 3 of file gfcbug113.f90
> + /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe5) [0xb7641705]
>
>
> Same for SIGSEGV etc. It would be nice if I got back
> the old behaviour where the actual error is displayed.
> I'm not always good at guessing...
>
What exactly do you want?
In 4.7, the last line of the backtrace is
"Floating point exception (core dumped)".
That matches the first line from 4.6
"Program received signal 8 (SIGFPE): Floating-point exception."
In 4.7, the line
#3 0x80493B3 in foo at gfcbug113.f90:8
contains all of the information from 4.6
+ function foo (0x80494B3)
at line 8 of file gfcbug113.f90
--
steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
2011-11-17 20:25 ` [Bug fortran/51197] " kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-17 20:55 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2011-11-18 7:34 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gmx dot de @ 2011-11-17 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #2 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> 2011-11-17 20:17:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > A fatal error occurred! Backtrace for this error:
> > #0 0x80588BF in _gfortrani_show_backtrace at backtrace.c:261
> > #1 0x80494B7 in _gfortrani_backtrace_handler at compile_options.c:46
> > #2 0xFFFFE3FF
> > #3 0x80493B3 in foo at gfcbug113.f90:8
> > #4 0x804940B in backtrace at gfcbug113.f90:3
> > Floating point exception (core dumped)
> >
> >
> > With gfortran 4.6:
> >
> > Program received signal 8 (SIGFPE): Floating-point exception.
> >
> > Backtrace for this error:
> > + [0xffffe400]
> > + function foo (0x80494B3)
> > at line 8 of file gfcbug113.f90
> > + function backtrace (0x804950C)
> > at line 3 of file gfcbug113.f90
> > + /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe5) [0xb7641705]
>
> What exactly do you want?
>
> In 4.7, the last line of the backtrace is
>
> "Floating point exception (core dumped)".
>
> That matches the first line from 4.6
>
> "Program received signal 8 (SIGFPE): Floating-point exception."
>
>
> In 4.7, the line
>
> #3 0x80493B3 in foo at gfcbug113.f90:8
>
>
> contains all of the information from 4.6
>
> + function foo (0x80494B3)
> at line 8 of file gfcbug113.f90
Well, thanks for pointing out I was not precise enough.
While "reducing" the problem, I forgot that the difference
lies in where the line
> > Floating point exception (core dumped)
ends up. Try redirecting stderr, you'll see that in the first
case (bash on linux) this line does *not* go to stderr,
while in the second case (4.6) it does. When running programs
in a shell with output redirected, the information will end up
in different places.
So it would be nice to actually write the SIG* information also
to stderr.
Harald
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
2011-11-17 20:25 ` [Bug fortran/51197] " kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-17 20:55 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2011-11-18 7:34 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-18 14:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jb at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-18 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-18 06:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, thanks for pointing out I was not precise enough.
> While "reducing" the problem, I forgot that the difference
> lies in where the line
>
> > > Floating point exception (core dumped)
>
> ends up. Try redirecting stderr, you'll see that in the first
> case (bash on linux) this line does *not* go to stderr,
> while in the second case (4.6) it does. When running programs
> in a shell with output redirected, the information will end up
> in different places.
>
> So it would be nice to actually write the SIG* information also
> to stderr.
In 4.7 that's out of libgfortran's control, and I'd argue that fixing it would
make other issues worse. So in 4.7 the signal handler basically does
1) Print the backtrace.
2) Reset the handler for the signal to the default.
3) Raise the same signal.
This has the benefit that except for the printing of the backtrace, the
handling of the signal is identical to how it works with -fno-backtrace. E.g.
we get the correct process return value, and the decision whether to generate a
core dump or not is done by the OS in an identical fashion. If you check 4.6,
you get different process return codes for 1) default (-fno-backtrace), 2)
-fbacktrace 3) -fbacktrace -fdump-core. In the latter two cases the exit codes
have nothing to do with the fatal signal which was delivered.
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. Of course, in 4.7 libgfortran could print a
similar line as in 4.6, but that would lead to duplicated output in the common
case where stdout and stderr go to the same place.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-18 7:34 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-18 14:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-18 19:51 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-18 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2011-11-18
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-18 13:44:38 UTC ---
(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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-18 14:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-18 19:51 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2011-11-23 20:31 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gmx dot de @ 2011-11-18 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-18 19:51 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2011-11-23 20:31 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2011-11-23 21:00 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gmx dot de @ 2011-11-23 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> 2011-11-23 20:13:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 25905
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25905
Patch the reproduce desired behavior
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-23 20:31 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2011-11-23 21:00 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2011-12-05 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gmx dot de @ 2011-11-23 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> 2011-11-23 20:14:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> 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.)
I've just done this myself, using the function handler()
from a previous version of libgfortran/runtime/compile_options.c
and putting back the essential part.
With the attached patch, I get:
Program received signal 8 (SIGFPE): Floating-point exception.
Backtrace for this error:
#0 0x805891F in _gfortrani_show_backtrace at backtrace.c:261
#1 0x804951F in _gfortrani_backtrace_handler at compile_options.c:93
#2 0xFFFFE3FF
#3 0x80493B3 in foo at gfcbug113.f90:8
#4 0x804940B in backtrace at gfcbug113.f90:3
written to stderr when -fbacktrace is active, otherwise nothing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-23 21:00 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2011-12-05 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-06 14:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-05 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-05 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-06 14:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-09 19:54 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-06 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-06 14:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-09 19:54 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-09 19:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-10 9:33 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-09 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-09 19:54:11 UTC ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.7).
Harald, thanks for the patch!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-09 19:54 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-09 19:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-10 9:33 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-09 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-09 19:53:32 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:53:27 2012
New Revision: 183030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183030
Log:
2012-01-09 Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR fortran/51197
* runtime/backtrace.c (show_backtrace): Modify wording written
before the backtrace.
* runtime/compile_options.c (show_signal): New function.
(backtrace_handler): Use it.
Modified:
trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
trunk/libgfortran/runtime/backtrace.c
trunk/libgfortran/runtime/compile_options.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/51197] [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful
2011-11-17 20:17 [Bug fortran/51197] New: [4.7 Regression] Backtrace information less useful anlauf at gmx dot de
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-09 19:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-10 9:33 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-10 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-10 09:32:34 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 10 09:32:29 2012
New Revision: 183057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183057
Log:
2012-01-10 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
PR fortran/51197
* runtime/compile_options.c (show_signal): List
more signals.
Modified:
trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
trunk/libgfortran/runtime/compile_options.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread