From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22927 invoked by alias); 18 May 2012 07:36:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 22629 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2012 07:36:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_BG 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 07:36:18 +0000 From: "burnus 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 07:43:00 -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: burnus 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/msg01768.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-18 07:35:17 UTC --- (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. 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. > FWIW, if it is decided to change this, one could also consider changing > runtime_error() and internal_error() in the same way, though one would need to > audit the usage in libgfortran so that we don't generate a backtrace for a > "file not found" or similar "benign" error. I agree that, at least by default, "file not found" shouldn't print a backtrace - though one could still think of it with some aggressive backtrace flag/environment variable.