From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24331 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2012 22:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24203 invoked by uid 48); 4 Nov 2012 22:23:41 -0000 From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/55174] [4.6 Regression] Segmentation fault with bad array reference Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:23:00 -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: ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: janus at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |DUPLICATE --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 22:23:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > I have just tried gfortran 4.7.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) and it > gave the internal compiler error with my program. So it seems that > 4.7.0 and 4.7.1 both have the bug and 4.7.2 does not. Good. So it has been fixed between 4.7.1 and 4.7.2, apparently by this commit: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191216 This is the fix for PR 54225, and the good news is that it has also been backported to the 4.6 branch and therefore will be part of the future 4.6.4 release. So I think we can just close this as a duplicate of PR 54225. Nevertheless, thanks for the bug report! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 54225 ***