From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-393349-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 750 invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 19:41:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 740 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2012 19:41:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,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; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:41:16 +0000
From: "anlauf at gmx dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:46:00 -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: anlauf at gmx dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53379-4-owfRtcOWyK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53379-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53379-4@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: 2012-05/txt/msg02967.txt.bz2

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

--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> 2012-05-31 19:41:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 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. Or in other words, "error
> termination", as specified in the Fortran standard, should not lead to a
> backtrace. See also the comment in runtime/error.c that talks about this.

The patch in comment #1 changes only runtime_error_at, which appears to
be generated by the front-end only.

BTW: The program

program test
  open(unit=10, file="/no/such/file", action='read')
end program test

gives with 4.7 and the patch in comment #1:

At line 2 of file test.f90 (unit = 10, file = '')
Fortran runtime error: File '/no/such/file' does not exist

while 4.6.2 with -fbacktrace produces:
At line 2 of file test.f90 (unit = 10, file = '')
Fortran runtime error: File '/no/such/file' does not exist

Backtrace for this error:
  + function test (0x80485F9)
    at line 3 of file test.f90
  + /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf3) [0xb73be003]

The latter error is generated by a call to runtime_error_at in
the compiled program, while the former error in open must be
generated somewhere in st_open and descendants.

Not relevant here, but note the missing file name in the first
line of the error message.