[Bug fortran/59016] New: f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[Bug fortran/59016] New: f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

            Bug ID: 59016
           Summary: f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch

gcc version 4.9.0 20131106 (experimental) [trunk revision 204433] (GCC)  yields
the following internal compiler error:

f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0x9fee4f crash_signal
    ../../gcc/gcc/toplev.c:334
0x5ed8f9 gfc_sym_get_dummy_args(gfc_symbol*)
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:4572
0x5c73e1 resolve_fl_procedure
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:10971
0x5c73e1 resolve_symbol
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:13301
0x5e6233 do_traverse_symtree
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3571
0x5d1477 resolve_types
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14475
0x5c5aa3 gfc_resolve
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14572
0x5c5aa3 gfc_resolve(gfc_namespace*)
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14560
0x5bb30a gfc_parse_file()
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:4672
0x5f9c65 gfc_be_parse_file
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:189
Please submit a full bug report,

when compiling the invalid code below with

gfortran -c  -cpp bug.f90

> cat bug.f90
MODULE atomic_kind_types
  PUBLIC :: atomic_kind_type,&
            dft_plus_u_type
CONTAINS
  SUBROUTINE get_atomic_kind_set(atomic_kind_set,maxatom,maxcgf,&
       zetsoft_max,basis_set_id)
       CALL stop_program(routineN,moduleN,__LINE__,&
            "The pointer atomic_kind_set is not associated")
  END SUBROUTINE get_atomic_kind_set
  PURE FUNCTION is_hydrogen(atomic_kind) RESULT(res)
    TYPE(atomic_kind_type), POINTER          :: atomic_kind
  END FUNCTION is_hydrogen
END MODULE atomic_kind_types

It appears to be some corruption of some kind, since just compiling with
gfortran -c bug.f90 does not ICE, instead contains some garbage string in the
error message:

1
Error: Procedure '��XS0' in generic interface 'atomic_kind_type' at (1) is
neither function nor subroutine

Running under valgrind might help.
>From gcc-bugs-return-433691-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Nov 06 08:51:20 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-433691-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22732 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2013 08:51:20 -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 21786 invoked by uid 48); 6 Nov 2013 08:49:18 -0000
From: "lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/57926] Atomic functions broken with C++ but not C?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:51:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-57926-4-BtAFRAeWtv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57926-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57926-4@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: 2013-11/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2
Content-length: 137

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW926

--- Comment #10 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com ---
Is this going to be fixed?

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2013-11-17
                 CC|                            |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can not reproduce the ICE, but I see the corrupted error message and several
valgrind errors.

Reduced test case:

MODULE atomic_kind_types
  PUBLIC :: atomic_kind_type
CONTAINS
  INTEGER FUNCTION is_hydrogen(atomic_kind)
    TYPE(atomic_kind_type), pointer :: atomic_kind
  END FUNCTION
END MODULE

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[bdavis at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

Bud Davis <bdavis at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #2 from Bud Davis <bdavis at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Is the reduced test case valid code ?
Should it compile cleanly or should it provide a warning or error ?

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
With the test in comment 1, I get on x86_64-apple-darwin13:

    TYPE(atomic_kind_type), pointer :: atomic_kind
                          1
Error: Derived type 'atomic_kind_type' at (1) is being used before it is
defined
,:0:
    Included at _gfortran_dot_product:4096:
    Included at __convert_h1_i16:4096:
    Included at __builtin_frexpf:4096:
    Included at __atomic_fetch_and_16:4096:
    Included at __builtin_ia32_packssdw:4096:
    Included at __builtin_ia32_cvtsi2sd:4096:
    Included at __builtin_ia32_monitor:4096:
    Included at :4096:

\U42C27000\x01/

f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11

f951: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6
gfc: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6 (program f951)
Abort

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Backtrace is

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
error_print(const char *, const char *, typedef __va_list_tag __va_list_tag *)
(type=<optimized out>, format0=<optimized out>, argp=<optimized out>)
    at ../../work/gcc/fortran/error.c:173
173      while (*p)
(gdb) bt
#0  error_print(const char *, const char *, typedef __va_list_tag __va_list_tag
*) (type=<optimized out>, format0=<optimized out>, 
    argp=<optimized out>) at ../../work/gcc/fortran/error.c:173
#1  0x000000010002fa4e in gfc_error (gmsgid=<optimized out>) at
../../work/gcc/fortran/error.c:1003
#2  0x000000010003827c in check_interface0 (p=0x141f05ad0,
interface_name=0x7fff5fbff060 "generic interface 'atomic_kind_type'")
    at ../../work/gcc/fortran/interface.c:1568
#3  0x000000010003b243 in check_sym_interfaces (sym=0x25) at
../../work/gcc/fortran/interface.c:1680
#4  0x00000001000a98dc in do_traverse_symtree (st=<optimized out>,
st_func=<optimized out>, sym_func=<optimized out>)
    at ../../work/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3575
#5  0x000000010003c01c in gfc_check_interfaces (ns=0x143020c00) at
../../work/gcc/fortran/interface.c:1790
#6  0x0000000100094071 in resolve_types (ns=<optimized out>) at
../../work/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14589
#7  0x000000010008f9eb in gfc_resolve (ns=<optimized out>) at
../../work/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14670
#8  0x000000010007a0a1 in gfc_parse_file () at
../../work/gcc/fortran/parse.c:4672
#9  0x00000001000bc7f6 in gfc_be_parse_file () at
../../work/gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:188
#10 0x000000010084c924 in compile_file () at ../../work/gcc/toplev.c:547
#11 0x000000010084ebe9 in toplev_main (argc=2, argv=0x7fff5fbff4d0) at
../../work/gcc/toplev.c:1887

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2013-11-17 00:00:00         |2014-12-6
                 CC|                            |Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz
                   |                            |.ch

--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> ---
confirmed for trunk, backtrace now:

f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xb364df crash_signal
    ../../gcc/gcc/toplev.c:358
0x658af9 gfc_sym_get_dummy_args(gfc_symbol*)
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:4659
0x632130 resolve_fl_procedure
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:11189
0x632130 resolve_symbol
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:13568
0x6511e3 do_traverse_symtree
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3641
0x63c61f resolve_types
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14781
0x6304a3 gfc_resolve
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14882
0x6304a3 gfc_resolve(gfc_namespace*)
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:14870
0x62580a gfc_parse_file()
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:5080
0x6652e5 gfc_be_parse_file
    ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:222
Please submit a full bug report,

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #7 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Hi,

The reduced test case which has been posted by janus (comment 1) crashes also
4.8.4 and gcc 5.0 (the latter was copied from trunc a few days ago).

The backtrace I get agrees with that of Dominique's (comment 4). The problem is
likely in function "check_interface0"; the locus of "p->sym" is invalid when
gfc_error is called:

   gfc_error ("Procedure '%s' in %s at %L is neither function nor "
              "subroutine", p->sym->name, interface_name,
          &p->sym->declared_at);

Likely, the reason is that there is a symbol only in the access statement but
the expected function/subroutine hasn't been defined. 

Perhaps, one can avoid the segmentation fault with an addition argument in
function "check_interface0".  The argument will be not null only if called by
function "check_sym_interfaces"; in which case it will be the symbol that
appears in the access-stmt.

I'm not really if we can reproduce the error for intrinsic assignment operators
but the solution could be similar.

Provided that such a patch will be implemented, the second error message for
the example at comment 1 would look like:

pr59016.f90:2.30:

    PUBLIC :: atomic_kind_type
                              1
Error: undefined function/subroutine for generic interface 'atomic_kind_type'
at (1) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: please also note that I've not run the regression tests!

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #8 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---

When gfortran reports the error, it expects that the name 'atomic_kind_type' is
likely a procedure or function; but the syntax of the access-stmt is:

access-stmt ::= access-spec [ [ :: ] access-id-list ]
access-id   ::= use-name | generic-spec
access-spec::=

Each use-name shall be the name of a named variable, procedure, derived type,
named constant, or namelist group.

Perhaps, a more accurate error message could be:

    PUBLIC :: atomic_kind_type
                              1
Error: Undefined use-name 'atomic_kind_type' in access statement at (1)

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
I have tested on trunk (5.0) the following variant

--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/interface.c    2015-03-25 14:07:04.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/interface.c    2015-03-30 10:05:08.000000000 +0200
@@ -1558,7 +1569,7 @@ next:
    something goes wrong.  */

 static int
-check_interface0 (gfc_interface *p, const char *interface_name)
+check_interface0 (gfc_interface *p, const char *interface_name, gfc_symbol
*origin)
 {
   gfc_interface *psave, *q, *qlast;

@@ -1571,7 +1582,16 @@ check_interface0 (gfc_interface *p, cons
        || !p->sym->attr.if_source)
       && p->sym->attr.flavor != FL_DERIVED)
     {
-      if (p->sym->attr.external)
+      if (origin)
+        {
+           /* since program crashes, print access statement info or just the
name; then exit! */
+           if (origin->declared_at.lb->file)
+          gfc_error ("undefined function/subroutine for %s at %L ",
+                interface_name, &origin->declared_at);
+           else
+         gfc_error ("undefined function/subroutine for %s ",interface_name);
+        }
+      else if (p->sym->attr.external)
         gfc_error ("Procedure %qs in %s at %L has no explicit interface",
                p->sym->name, interface_name, &p->sym->declared_at);
       else
@@ -1689,7 +1709,7 @@ check_sym_interfaces (gfc_symbol *sym)
   if (sym->generic != NULL)
     {
       sprintf (interface_name, "generic interface '%s'", sym->name);
-      if (check_interface0 (sym->generic, interface_name))
+      if (check_interface0 (sym->generic, interface_name, sym))
     return;

       for (p = sym->generic; p; p = p->next)
@@ -1721,7 +1741,7 @@ check_uop_interfaces (gfc_user_op *uop)
   gfc_namespace *ns;

   sprintf (interface_name, "operator interface '%s'", uop->name);
-  if (check_interface0 (uop->op, interface_name))
+  if (check_interface0 (uop->op, interface_name, NULL))
     return;

   for (ns = gfc_current_ns; ns; ns = ns->parent)
@@ -1814,7 +1834,7 @@ gfc_check_interfaces (gfc_namespace *ns)
     sprintf (interface_name, "intrinsic '%s' operator",
          gfc_op2string ((gfc_intrinsic_op) i));

-      if (check_interface0 (ns->op[i], interface_name))
+      if (check_interface0 (ns->op[i], interface_name, NULL))
     continue;

       if (ns->op[i])

It fixes this PR and at least pr56674, pr58813, pr59024, and pr65469. However
it causes the following regressions:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/constructor_9.f90   -O   (test for errors, line 13)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/constructor_9.f90   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/generic_14.f90   -O   (test for errors, line 90)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/generic_14.f90   -O   (test for errors, line 99)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/generic_14.f90   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/keyword_symbol_1.f90   -O   (test for errors, line 20)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/keyword_symbol_1.f90   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_3.f90   -O   (test for errors, line 37)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_3.f90   -O   (test for errors, line 38)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_3.f90   -O   (test for errors, line 39)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_3.f90   -O  (test for excess errors)

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #10 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Created attachment 35226
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35226&action=edit
altered patch for the regressions reported in comment 9

Hi Dominiq,

In a slightly altered patched, I've added a precondition which examines first
the locus of the current symbol and finally the error reported seems to comply
with the testsuites.

I've run the 4 tests one by one with the debugger; I don't know what is exactly
the meaning of the phrase "(test for excess errors)" or why each test appears
twice in your list. If I miss any important details please tell me.

Regards,
Ev. Drikos

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> In a slightly altered patched, I've added a precondition which examines
> first the locus of the current symbol and finally the error reported seems
> to comply with the testsuites.

Indeed, however the new patch does not prevent the ICEs.

AFAICT the basic problem is not with p->sym->declared_at.lb, but with
p->sym->name. I have tried to check for p->sym->name==0 which happen sometime,
but not always in a seemingly random way.

When p->sym->name!=0 and an ICE, p->sym->name seems malformed. So I suspect a
bug upstream where the pointer p->sym->name is not reset to NULL.

BTW your patches do not follow the gnu coding style.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |daniel.price at monash dot edu

--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
*** Bug 65469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #13 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Hi Dominiq,

The new patch (gcc-4.8.4) worked as the older one but since the locus is
corrupted I'm not surprised that a test case you tried failed. Could you post
it here please?

The corrupted locus is the reason that the patch 65469, submitted by Janus,
doesn't work also; the "p->sym->name" sometimes is not null but it points to an
invalid location and so one cannot use it in a comparison: 

if (p->sym->name != NULL ) //segmentation fault!

Since the locus is corrupted, in my first patch I avoided to examine it
whenever we are about to print an error and the referenced locus was available;
which obviously invalidated some test cases in comment 9. 

To reset the name to null, one needs to figure out where the symbol is created
(or assigned to p) which is something I don't know at the moment.

With regard to the coding style, I'd like to ask for some indexes (e.g. gnu
guideline or something like that).

Regards,
Ev. Drikos

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #14 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---

Indeed, the new patch in comment 10 does not prevent the ICEs with the the
first example bug.f90 (in Description before comment 1).

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #15 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Created attachment 35230
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35230&action=edit
altered patch for the regressions reported in comment 11

Hi,

As it seems the problem with the program bug.f90 is that the generic attribute
is set in a symbol as the parser tries to match a declaration type
specification; but finally, the statement isn't matched as such and the generic
attribute wasn't cleared.

So, the attached patch makes the cleanup, without causing the regressions
listed in comment 9.

The question here is if gfortran had to print an error message for this
program:

module types
  public :: undefined
end module types
write (*,*) "undefined types!"
end 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: I've not checked out the source code from a repo, so the attached patch is
just the output of the diff command (not svn diff).

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> As it seems the problem with the program bug.f90 is that the generic
> attribute is set in a symbol as the parser tries to match a declaration
> type specification; but finally, the statement isn't matched as such
> and the generic attribute wasn't cleared.
>
> So, the attached patch makes the cleanup, without causing the regressions
> listed in comment 9.

IMO the patch addresses the root of the problem and prevents the ICEs in the
PRs listed in comment 9. However it causes 3000+ failures in the test suite, so
the filter you apply is not narrow enough.

> The question here is if gfortran had to print an error message for
> this program:
> 
> module types
>   public :: undefined
> end module types
> write (*,*) "undefined types!"
> end 

Why should it without "implicit none"?

Your patches do not follow the GNU coding standards:

http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/

The last patch should look as

--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/decl.c    2015-03-25 14:07:04.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/decl.c    2015-04-05 13:02:38.000000000 +0200
@@ -4427,6 +4427,31 @@ ok:
   gfc_free_data_all (gfc_current_ns);

 cleanup:
+  //<pr59016> in gfc_match_data_decl; cleanup the garbages  
+  gfc_symbol *csym = NULL;
+  if (current_ts.u.derived && current_ts.u.derived->name)
+    {
+      char iname[129];
+      iname[128] = 0;
+      for (int i = 0; i < 128; i++)
+    {
+      iname[i] = current_ts.u.derived->name[i];
+      if (current_ts.u.derived->name[i] == 0)
+        break;
+    }
+      iname[0] = TOLOWER(iname[0]);
+      for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+    {
+     gfc_find_symbol (iname, NULL, i, &csym) ;
+     if (csym && csym->generic
+         && (csym->generic->sym == current_ts.u.derived))
+       {
+          csym->generic = NULL;
+          break;
+       }
+    }
+    }
+  //</pr59016>
   gfc_free_array_spec (current_as);
   current_as = NULL;
   return m;

(note that I may have done some errors myself). In addition you should comment
what you are trying to do.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
I have forgotten to give a sample of the failing tests with the patch in
comment 15:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/alloc_comp_3.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2  -latomic
(test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/alloc_comp_3.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2  -lcaf_single
-latomic (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/poly_run_1.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2  -latomic (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/poly_run_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2  -lcaf_single
-latomic (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/poly_run_2.f90 -fcoarray=single  -O2  -latomic (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/poly_run_2.f90 -fcoarray=lib  -O2  -lcaf_single
-latomic (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_3.f03   -O   (test for errors, line 38)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_3.f03   -O   (test for errors, line 44)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_3.f03   -O   (test for errors, line 48)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_3.f03   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_4.f03   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_6.f03   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_12.f03   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_13.f08   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_14.f08   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_8.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_3.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_4.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_5.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_6.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_6.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_6.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_6.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_6.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_6.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_6.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_alloc_expr_3.f90   -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_7.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -O0  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -O1  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -O1  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -O2  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -O2  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
(test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -O3 -g  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -Os  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_bounds_1.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -Os  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_1.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_class_1.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_auto_array_2.f90   -O0  (test for excess errors)
...

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
With an additional filtering on (m == MATCH_ERROR), i.e. with the following
patch, the ICEs are fixed without regression

--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/decl.c    2015-03-25 14:07:04.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/decl.c    2015-04-05 16:17:34.000000000 +0200
@@ -4427,6 +4437,32 @@ ok:
   gfc_free_data_all (gfc_current_ns);

 cleanup:
+  //<pr59016> in gfc_match_data_decl; cleanup the garbages  
+  gfc_symbol *csym = NULL;
+  if ((m == MATCH_ERROR) && current_ts.u.derived
+      && current_ts.u.derived->name)
+    {
+      char iname[129];
+      iname[128] = 0;
+      for (int i = 0; i < 128; i++)
+    {
+      iname[i] = current_ts.u.derived->name[i];
+      if (current_ts.u.derived->name[i] == 0)
+        break;
+    }
+      iname[0] = TOLOWER(iname[0]);
+      for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+    {
+     gfc_find_symbol (iname, NULL, i, &csym) ;
+     if (csym && csym->generic
+         && (csym->generic->sym == current_ts.u.derived))
+       {
+          csym->generic = NULL;
+          break;
+       }
+    }
+    }
+  //</pr59016>
   gfc_free_array_spec (current_as);
   current_as = NULL;
   return m;

Further testing in progress. A few comments:

(1) The patch could probably be simplified,
(2) Its conformity with the GNU coding style has to be checked.
(3) It has to go to fortran@gcc.gnu.org and gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org for review.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #19 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---

Ok, I'll send a patch to the recommended addresses as soon as I read the GNU
coding standards. 

Yet, my impression is that perhaps the patch should be a bit more complex; in
example, I think that the generic interface is introduced to a list and one has
to remove it and restore to old value of the field "generic" to the symbol.

Also, I think that the additional test could be: "( m != MATCH_OK )"

Thank you for your patience to run the tests.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Also, I think that the additional test could be: "( m != MATCH_OK )"

I don't think so: the block in the patch will be reached for (m == MATCH_NO)
and I think this leads to the regressions.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #21 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Created attachment 35232
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35232&action=edit
cleanup if a declaration type spec is erroneous

Finally, I've sent for review to the recommended recipients the attached patch,
which is suitable for gcc5.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #22 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Created attachment 35234
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35234&action=edit
cleanup if a declaration type spec is erroneous

Let's see if the function names are properly printed into the context
surrounding changes; the GNU patch guidelines suggest it!

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
*** Bug 65469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Created attachment 35240
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35240&action=edit
Cleaned patch

I have cleaned the patch along the Mikael's comment and fixed the test case.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can we and do we commit this patch? I do very much appreciate Evangelos work
here.  I just do not understand where we are with copy right assignment status.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[drikosev at otenet dot gr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #26 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Hello,

It was my impression that small changes can be accepted by FSF without a
copyright disclaimer or a copyright assignment on file, according to:

https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal

So, my question is what the next action should be?

Regards, 
Ev. Drikos



On Apr 7, 2015, at 9:57 PM, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
> 
> Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 CC|                            |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
> 
> --- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Can we and do we commit this patch? I do very much appreciate Evangelos work
> here.  I just do not understand where we are with copy right assignment status.
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #27 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Apr 10 11:29:53 2015
New Revision: 221972

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR fortran/56674
    PR fortran/58813
    PR fortran/59016
    PR fortran/59024
fortran/
    * symbol.c (save_symbol_data, gfc_save_symbol_data): Rename the
    former to the latter and make it non-static.  Update callers.
    * gfortran.h (gfc_save_symbol_data): New prototype.
    * decl.c (gfc_match_decl_type_spec): Call 'gfc_save_symbol_data'
    before modifying symbols 'sym' and 'dt_sym'.
testsuite/
    * gfortran.dg/used_types_27.f90: New.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_27.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Apr 14 09:18:15 2015
New Revision: 222078

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222078&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR fortran/56674
    PR fortran/58813
    PR fortran/59016
    PR fortran/59024
fortran/
    * symbol.c (save_symbol_data, gfc_save_symbol_data): Rename the
    former to the latter and make it non-static.  Update callers.
    * gfortran.h (gfc_save_symbol_data): New prototype.
    * decl.c (gfc_match_decl_type_spec): Call 'gfc_save_symbol_data'
    before modifying symbols 'sym' and 'dt_sym'.
testsuite/
    * gfortran.dg/used_types_27.f90: New.


Added:
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_27.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/fortran/decl.c
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #29 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Apr 14 12:23:30 2015
New Revision: 222086

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR fortran/56674
    PR fortran/58813
    PR fortran/59016
    PR fortran/59024
fortran/
    * symbol.c (save_symbol_data, gfc_save_symbol_data): Rename the
    former to the latter and make it non-static.  Update callers.
    * gfortran.h (gfc_save_symbol_data): New prototype.
    * decl.c (gfc_match_decl_type_spec): Call 'gfc_save_symbol_data'
    before modifying symbols 'sym' and 'dt_sym'.
testsuite/
    * gfortran.dg/used_types_27.f90: New.


Added:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_27.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/decl.c
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

--- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 56674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |zeccav at gmail dot com

--- Comment #31 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 58813 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kimwooyoung at gmail dot com

--- Comment #32 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 59024 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/59016] f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.5

--- Comment #33 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 5.1, 4.9.3, 4.8.5.
Thanks for the bug report, and for the initial patches.