From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25025 invoked by alias); 18 May 2012 14:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 25016 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2012 14:33:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED 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 May 2012 14:32:57 +0000 From: "jb at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/53379] [4.7/4.8 Regression] No backtrace generated for array bounds violation Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:46:00 -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: jb at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg01816.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379 --- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-05-18 14:32:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > AFAICS, this is an intentional change in behavior. When I proposed making > > backtracing enabled by default, there was some objections to the initial patch > > on the grounds that the backtracing was too aggressive. > > I wonder whether one should add a more aggressive version of backtrace (which > could be internally pass backtrace == 2), which covers this case. Ditto for > some environment flag. Well yes, but IMHO the best option would be to do the right thing by default, making an option unnecessary. If anything, a bewildering array of options is an usability issue. For instance... > I have to admit that the description of > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/GFORTRAN_005fERROR_005fBACKTRACE.html is > misleading. And the meaning and relation of it to > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/GFORTRAN_005fSHOW_005fLOCUS.html is also > unclear. one wonders what is the purpose of GFORTRAN_SHOW_LOCUS. What value do we provide by providing a means to NOT print out the filename/line information? I think the answer is "none" and thus we should get rid of it, simplifying the code and manual a tidy bit.