[Bug fortran/53379] [4.9/5/6 Regression] No backtrace generated for array bounds violation

["fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379

Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #22 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #21)
> Since it is mostly a 'taste' issue when to emit a backtrace or not, I think
> it makes sense to just make it an option flag, either never or always emit a
> backtrace. The flag '-fbacktrace' already exists and it could imply generate
> a backtrace on every 'error termination', run time error, or deadly signals. 
> 
> I would find that very useful.

I strongly second that. Backtraces are useful for those informed, and can be
turned off (or ignored) by the non expert. So, I think every error termination
should print a backtrace.

That is: any case where we call abort(), or call exit() with non-zero status.
Except, possibly, user-specified non-zero status (like "STOP 42").


PS: Regarding the argument that many runtime errors already indicate the source
file and line number for the error, well… a backtrace has much more indication
since it indicates the entire code path for the error.
>From gcc-bugs-return-496019-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Aug 31 21:49:48 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-496019-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32944 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2015 21:49:46 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32900 invoked by uid 48); 31 Aug 2015 21:49:41 -0000
From: "jb at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/67414] [5 Regression] Error message on failed allocate
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jb at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_file_loc
Message-ID: <bug-67414-4-V3WB6Gwd1c@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67414-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67414-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg02161.txt.bz2
Content-length: 570

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idg414

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
                   |                            |patches/2015-08/msg01909.ht
                   |                            |ml

--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg01909.html