[Bug fortran/57129] New: ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[Bug fortran/57129] New: ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

             Bug #: 57129
           Summary: ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: burnus@gcc.gnu.org


The following invalid code causes a segfault in check_extended_derived_type

subroutine t()
  type t
  end type t
  type, extends(t) :: t2
  end type t2
end


It first correctly diagnoses:
type t
      1
Error: FUNCTION attribute conflicts with SUBROUTINE attribute in 't' at (1)

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.4

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Revision 181424 gives the following errors
> [...]
> revision 181425 gives the ICE.

r181425 is Tobias' constructor patch.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> r181425 is Tobias' constructor patch.

This revision also gives pr56674.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Cannot reproduce anymore.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Cannot reproduce anymore.

I can reproduce it with gfortran 4.8.2, but not with trunk (r206759), nor with
4.7.4/4.8.3.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
On darwin10 I get the ICE with r202590 (2013-09-14), but not with r204463
(2013-11-06).
On darwin12/13 I don't get the ICE even for r201916.

May be fixed by revision 202823

Author:    janus
Date:    Mon Sep 23 07:40:39 2013 UTC (3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Changed paths:    4
Log Message:    
2013-09-23  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR fortran/58355
    * decl.c (check_extended_derived_type): Prevent segfault, modify error
    message.

2013-09-23  Janus Weil  <janus@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR fortran/58355
    * gfortran.dg/extends_15.f90: New.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> On darwin12/13 I don't get the ICE even for r201916.

I don't know what I did. After rechecking I found that r202804 gives the ICE
and r202825 does not.

The error is now

pr57129.f90:2.8:

  type t
        1
Error: FUNCTION attribute conflicts with SUBROUTINE attribute in 't' at (1)
pr57129.f90:3.5:

  end type t
     1
Error: Expecting END SUBROUTINE statement at (1)
pr57129.f90:4.18:

  type, extends(t) :: t2
                  1
Error: Symbol 't' at (1) has not been previously defined
pr57129.f90:5.5:

  end type t2
     1
Error: Expecting END SUBROUTINE statement at (1)

The errors such as

Error: Symbol 't' at (1) has not been previously defined

comes from r202823.

So r202823 is likely to have fixed this PR.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) in check_extended_derived_type

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> So r202823 is likely to have fixed this PR.

I can confirm that r202823 has fixed the ICE: Reverting that revision
reintroduces the ICE.

I can also confirm that the ICE is gone on all recent versions of trunk, 4.8
and 4.7.

However, the error message is now different from before for the test case in
comment 0 and this reduction:

subroutine t
  type t
  end type
end

With 4.6 one correctly gets:

  type t
        1
Error: PROCEDURE attribute of 't' conflicts with DERIVED attribute at (1)

while the recent versions now give:

  type t
        1
Error: FUNCTION attribute conflicts with SUBROUTINE attribute in 't' at (1)


This is surprising, since the FUNCTION attribute is not specified anywhere in
the test case. Apparently this is also due to Tobias' constructor patch
(r181425).

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|error-recovery,             |diagnostic
                   |ice-on-invalid-code         |
           Priority|P4                          |P5
            Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]    |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
                   |ICE (segfault) in           |Improve error message for
                   |check_extended_derived_type |conflicts between PROCEDURE
                   |                            |and DERIVED.
           Severity|normal                      |minor

--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> However, the error message is now different from before for the test case 
> in comment 0 and this reduction:
> ...

Confirmed. AFAICT the error message with 4.6 comes from gcc/fortran/symbol.c
while the present one comes from gcc/fortran/dec.c.

I have changed the summary to reflect the present situation. Should we keep the
regression flags?

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> > However, the error message is now different from before for the test case 
> > in comment 0 and this reduction:
> 
> Confirmed. AFAICT the error message with 4.6 comes from gcc/fortran/symbol.c
> while the present one comes from gcc/fortran/dec.c.

To me it looks like they both come from symbol.c, don't they?


> I have changed the summary to reflect the present situation. Should we keep
> the regression flags?

The wrong wording of the error message is still a regression (though not as
severe as the ICE), so I guess we should keep the regression flag.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.7.4                       |4.8.4

--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The 4.7 branch is being closed, moving target milestone to 4.8.4.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.8.4                       |4.8.5

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.4 has been released.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.8.5                       |4.9.3

--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The gcc-4_8-branch is being closed, re-targeting regressions to 4.9.3.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.

[Bug fortran/57129] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.9.3                       |4.9.4

[Bug fortran/57129] [8/9/10 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |WORKSFORME
                 CC|                            |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
      Known to work|                            |10.0, 8.3.1, 9.2.1

--- Comment #20 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I cannot reproduce on any active branch.  Please reopen if it reappears,
or open a new PR.

[Bug fortran/57129] [8/9/10 Regression] Improve error message for conflicts between PROCEDURE and DERIVED.

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129

--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e91c0a35e5d1af2018c379962cbe1008788aba72

commit r10-7796-ge91c0a35e5d1af2018c379962cbe1008788aba72
Author: Thomas König <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org>
Date:   Sun Apr 19 13:06:22 2020 +0200

    Commit test case for PR 57129.

    2020-04-19  Thomas Koenig  <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org>

            PR fortran/57129
            * gfortran.dg/subroutine_as_type.f90: New test.