[Bug fortran/60576] New: [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[Bug fortran/60576] New: [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

            Bug ID: 60576
           Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
                CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

On Linux/x86-64, r208641 caused:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test

with -march=corei7:

Core was generated by `./assumed_rank_7.exe'.
Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0  0x0000003cddb47859 in __memcpy_ssse3_back () from /lib64/libc.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0  0x0000003cddb47859 in __memcpy_ssse3_back () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x00000000004010d2 in MAIN__ ()
#2  0x00000000004009ed in main ()
(gdb) 

   0x0000003cddb47856 <+182>:    add    %rdx,%rsi
=> 0x0000003cddb47859 <+185>:    movdqu -0x10(%rsi),%xmm0
   0x0000003cddb4785e <+190>:    lea    -0x10(%rdi),%r8

(gdb) p/x $rsi
$5 = 0x602040
(gdb) 

It only happens when running

make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=assumed_rank_7.f90
--target_board='unix{-march=corei7\ -fno-backtrace}'"

with

[hjl@gnu-mic-2 gfortran.dg]$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
2
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 gfortran.dg]$ 

Gfortran generates:

        movl    $168, %edx
                 ^^^ Copy 168 bytes
        movl    $at.2415+24, %esi
                         ^^ Start at at.2415 + 24
        movq    at.2415(%rip), %r8 
        movq    at.2415+8(%rip), %r9 
        leaq    40(%rsp), %rdi
        movq    $__vtab_MAIN___T.2395, 208(%rsp)
        movq    at.2415+16(%rip), %r10
        movq    %r8, 16(%rsp)
        movq    %r9, 24(%rsp)
        movq    %r10, 32(%rsp)
        call    memcpy
...
        .local  at.2415
        .comm   at.2415,72,64
                        ^^ 72 bytes

Write 168 bytes to (72 - 24) bytes leads to segfault.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I can't reproduce it, in any case, this seems to have been broken before as
well
and starting with 208668 I get valgrind error about memcpy with overlapping
arguments.
The bug seems in:
class.5._data.dim[0 ...] = at.dim[0 ...];
at apparently has dim FIELD_DECL as array of 2 (24-byte) structs, i.e. 48 bytes
long, while the ARRAY_RANGE_REF around it accesses 7 24-byte structs, i.e. 168
bytes.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.9.0

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
at's dim array is created by:
#6  0x00000000006fc242 in gfc_get_array_descriptor_base (dimen=2, codimen=0,
restricted=true, akind=GFC_ARRAY_ALLOCATABLE)
    at ../../gcc/fortran/trans-types.c:1754
where the dimen=2 causes the dim array to be sized with 2 elements only, while
the larger ARRAY_REF comes from:
#4  0x0000000000e58b85 in build4_stat (code=ARRAY_RANGE_REF, tt=<array_type
0x7ffff19f0540>, arg0=<component_ref 0x7ffff1a08510>, 
    arg1=<integer_cst 0x7ffff18afa00>, arg2=<tree 0x0>, arg3=<tree 0x0>) at
../../gcc/tree.c:4241
#5  0x00000000006a8a72 in build4_stat_loc (loc=2692, code=ARRAY_RANGE_REF,
type=<array_type 0x7ffff19f0540>, arg0=<component_ref 0x7ffff1a08510>, 
    arg1=<integer_cst 0x7ffff18afa00>, arg2=<tree 0x0>, arg3=<tree 0x0>) at
../../gcc/tree.h:3499
#6  0x00000000006a98ff in class_array_data_assign (block=0x7fffffffd810,
lhs_desc=<component_ref 0x7ffff1a08390>, 
    rhs_desc=<var_decl 0x7ffff1a052f8 at>, lhs_type=true) at
../../gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:318
#7  0x00000000006a9ef5 in gfc_conv_derived_to_class (parmse=0x7fffffffd9a0,
e=0x1cd0640, class_ts=..., vptr=<tree 0x0>, optional=false, 
    optional_alloc_ptr=false) at ../../gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:427
#8  0x00000000006b3d51 in gfc_conv_procedure_call (se=0x7fffffffdbe0,
sym=0x1ccc570, args=0x1c63760, expr=0x0, append_args=0x0)
    at ../../gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:4039

The bug is in there already in r189800:
./f951.189800 -quiet -O2 assumed_rank_7.f90 -mstringop-strategy=libcall;
gfortran -o assumed_rank_7{,.s}; valgrind ./assumed_rank_7; echo $?
==7529== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==7529== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==7529== Using Valgrind-3.9.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==7529== Command: ./assumed_rank_7
==7529== 
==7529== Source and destination overlap in memcpy(0xfff0001b8, 0xfff000168,
168)
==7529==    at 0x4A0A403: memcpy@@GLIBC_2.14 (in
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==7529==    by 0x400F5B: MAIN__ (in /usr/src/gcc-test/obj/gcc/assumed_rank_7)
==7529==    by 0x4007AC: main (in /usr/src/gcc-test/obj/gcc/assumed_rank_7)
and r189600 still rejected this code, so to me this doesn't look like a
regression, but miscompilation from the day one when this particular feature
has been enabled.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.9.0                       |4.8.3
            Summary|[4.9 Regression] FAIL:      |[4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL:
                   |gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7. |gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.
                   |f90                         |f90

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-03-21
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Running the test compiled with -fsanitize=address gives

=================================================================
==70806==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address
0x7fff58110428 at pc 0x107b115d8 bp 0x7fff58110240 sp 0x7fff58110218
READ of size 168 at 0x7fff58110428 thread T0
    #0 0x107b115d7 (/opt/gcc/gcc4.9w/lib/libasan.1.dylib+0x1a5d7)
    #1 0x107af0340
(/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/a.out+0x100001340)
    #2 0x107af18ad
(/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/a.out+0x1000028ad)
    #3 0x7fff9184e5fc (/usr/lib/system/libdyld.dylib+0x35fc)
    #4 0x0

Address 0x7fff58110428 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 104 in frame
    #0 0x107af000d
(/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/a.out+0x10000100d)

  This frame has 1 object(s):
    [32, 104) 'at' <== Memory access at offset 104 overflows this variable
HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom stack
unwind mechanism or swapcontext
      (longjmp and C++ exceptions *are* supported)
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow ??:0 ??
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
  0x1fffeb022030: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb022040: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb022050: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb022060: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb022070: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1 f1 f1 00 00 00 00
=>0x1fffeb022080: 00 00 00 00 00[f4]f4 f4 f3 f3 f3 f3 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb022090: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0220a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0220b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0220c0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0220d0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
  Addressable:           00
  Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 
  Heap left redzone:       fa
  Heap right redzone:      fb
  Freed heap region:       fd
  Stack left redzone:      f1
  Stack mid redzone:       f2
  Stack right redzone:     f3
  Stack partial redzone:   f4
  Stack after return:      f5
  Stack use after scope:   f8
  Global redzone:          f9
  Global init order:       f6
  Poisoned by user:        f7
  Contiguous container OOB:fc
  ASan internal:           fe
==70806==ABORTING

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
BTW, I'm also getting:
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/ichar_3.f90  -O  (internal compiler error)
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/ichar_3.f90  -O  (test for excess errors)
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/intrinsics_kind_argument_1.f90  -O  (internal compiler
error)
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/intrinsics_kind_argument_1.f90  -O  (test for excess errors)
when f951 is built with -fstack-protector, again, doesn't look like a recent
regression, at some point this ICEd, at other points it needs
-fstack-protector, -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE, valgrind or asan.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

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

--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Cannot reproduce here; maybe this works?

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
index 1e156ff..f3423de 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ gfc_conv_derived_to_class (gfc_se *parmse, gfc_expr *e,
          gfc_conv_expr_descriptor (parmse, e);

          if (e->rank != class_ts.u.derived->components->as->rank)
-           class_array_data_assign (&block, ctree, parmse->expr, true);
+           class_array_data_assign (&block, ctree, parmse->expr, false);
          else
            {
              if (gfc_expr_attr (e).codimension)

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
H.J. just filed a separate PR about the ichar_3.f90 failure in PR60678.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> H.J. just filed a separate PR about the ichar_3.f90 failure in PR60678.

And one at PR 60677, which is due to the same cause. (The issue is there that
one has a len=1 character argument and a kind, but the BT_CHARACTER leads to an
extra length argument, which exceeds an array bound expecting only two
arguments.)

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] FAIL:  |[4.8 Regression] FAIL:
                   |gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7. |gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.
                   |f90                         |f90

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Mar 28 20:04:01 2014
New Revision: 208918

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-28  Mikael Morin  <mikael@gcc.gnu.org>
            Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>

        PR fortran/
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_derived_to_class): Avoid
        generation of out-of-bounds range expr.


Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: burnus
Revision: 208918
Modified property: svn:log

Modified: svn:log at Fri Mar 28 20:34:48 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- svn:log (original)
+++ svn:log Fri Mar 28 20:34:48 2014
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 2014-03-28  Mikael Morin  <mikael@gcc.gnu.org>
             Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>

-        PR fortran/
+        PR fortran/60576
         * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_derived_to_class): Avoid
         generation of out-of-bounds range expr.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Mar 28 20:56:28 2014
New Revision: 208923

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208923&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-28  Mikael Morin  <mikael@gcc.gnu.org>
            Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>

        PR fortran/60576
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_derived_to_class): Avoid
        generation of out-of-bounds range expr.


Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> It only happens when running
> make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=assumed_rank_7.f90
> --target_board='unix{-march=corei7\ -fno-backtrace}'"

Can you confirm that it is now fixed? Not that we only fixed part of the
problem.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> > It only happens when running
> > make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=assumed_rank_7.f90
> > --target_board='unix{-march=corei7\ -fno-backtrace}'"
> 
> Can you confirm that it is now fixed? Not that we only fixed part of the
> problem.

gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90 has been changed by r208668
and I can't reproduce it anymore.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90 has been changed by r208668
> and I can't reproduce it anymore.

I close it as FIXED and hope the best.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90 still aborts when compiled with
-fsanitize=address as in comment 3.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Reduced test case failing on x86_64-apple-darwin13 r208927 with -m64 (4.9.0 and
4.8.3, it succeeds with -m32 as well as the original test).

[Book15] f90/bug% cat assumed_rank_7_red.f90
implicit none
type t
  integer :: i
end type

class(T), allocatable :: ac(:,:)
type(T), allocatable :: at(:,:)

allocate(ac(2:3,2:4))
allocate(at(2:3,2:4))

call bar(ac)

contains
  subroutine bar(x)
    type(t) :: x(..)
    call foo(x)
  end subroutine
  subroutine foo(x)
    class(t) :: x(..)
  end subroutine
end 
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc assumed_rank_7_red.f90 -fsanitize=address
[Book15] f90/bug% a.out
=================================================================
==40254==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-underflow on address
0x7fff587043c0 at pc 0x10751d678 bp 0x7fff58704230 sp 0x7fff58704208
READ of size 192 at 0x7fff587043c0 thread T0
    #0 0x10751d677 (/opt/gcc/gcc4.9w/lib/libasan.1.dylib+0x1a677)
    #1 0x1074fc968
(/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/a.out+0x100001968)
    #2 0x1074fc6c7
(/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/a.out+0x1000016c7)
    #3 0x1074fc9af
(/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/a.out+0x1000019af)
    #4 0x7fff960745fc (/usr/lib/system/libdyld.dylib+0x35fc)
    #5 0x0

Address 0x7fff587043c0 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 0 in frame
    #0 0x1074fc1fe
(/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/a.out+0x1000011fe)

  This frame has 1 object(s):
    [32, 104) 'at' <== Memory access at offset 0 partially underflows this
variable
HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom stack
unwind mechanism or swapcontext
      (longjmp and C++ exceptions *are* supported)
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-underflow ??:0 ??
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
  0x1fffeb0e0820: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e0830: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e0840: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e0850: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e0860: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=>0x1fffeb0e0870: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00[f1]f1 f1 f1 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e0880: 00 00 00 00 00 f4 f4 f4 f3 f3 f3 f3 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e0890: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e08a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e08b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1fffeb0e08c0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
  Addressable:           00
  Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 
  Heap left redzone:       fa
  Heap right redzone:      fb
  Freed heap region:       fd
  Stack left redzone:      f1
  Stack mid redzone:       f2
  Stack right redzone:     f3
  Stack partial redzone:   f4
  Stack after return:      f5
  Stack use after scope:   f8
  Global redzone:          f9
  Global init order:       f6
  Poisoned by user:        f7
  Contiguous container OOB:fc
  ASan internal:           fe
==40254==ABORTING

The code executes without error if I comment the line

allocate(at(2:3,2:4))

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #14)
> gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90 still aborts when compiled with
> -fsanitize=address as in comment 3.

Reopening then.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.8.3                       |4.8.4

--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.3 is being released, adjusting target milestone.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.8 Regression] FAIL:      |[4.8/4.9/5 Regression]
                   |gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7. |FAIL:
                   |f90                         |gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.
                   |                            |f90

--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Still failing at r218570:

[Book15] f90/bug% gfcp assumed_rank_7_red.f90 -fsanitize=address -g
[Book15] f90/bug% a.out
=================================================================
==65593==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: unknown-crash on address 0x7fff5e78d250 at pc
0x00010147392a bp 0x7fff5e78d0f0 sp 0x7fff5e78d0e8
READ of size 192 at 0x7fff5e78d250 thread T0
    #0 0x101473929 in bar.3416
/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/assumed_rank_7_red.f90:17
    #1 0x101473618 in MAIN__
/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/assumed_rank_7_red.f90:12
    #2 0x10147399d in main
/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/assumed_rank_7_red.f90:12
    #3 0x7fff8451b5c8 in start (/usr/lib/system/libdyld.dylib+0x35c8)
    #4 0x0  (<unknown module>)

Address 0x7fff5e78d250 is located in stack of thread T0
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: unknown-crash
/Users/dominiq/Documents/Fortran/g95bench/win/f90/bug/assumed_rank_7_red.f90:17
bar.3416
...

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

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

--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.4 has been released.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

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

--- Comment #20 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/60576] [4.9/5/6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.

[Bug fortran/60576] [4.9/5/6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

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

[Bug fortran/60576] [8/9/10/11 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |WAITING
                 CC|                            |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #32 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I cannot reproduce the issue with 8-branch and newer on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
also valgrind seems to be happy enough.

If the issue still persists, could someone please identify the currently
failing versions?

[Bug fortran/60576] [9/10/11/12 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|8.5                         |9.4

--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 8 branch is being closed.

[Bug fortran/60576] [9/10/11/12 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
I still get

==33027==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address
0x7ffee0fa7e08 at pc 0x00010ef9b521 bp 0x7ffee0fa7a40 sp 0x7ffee0fa71f0
...

with GCC12 and

gfc /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90 -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions -fsanitize=address

[Bug fortran/60576] [9/10/11/12 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.4                         |9.5

--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.

[Bug fortran/60576] [10/11/12/13 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.5                         |10.4

--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9 branch is being closed

[Bug fortran/60576] [10/11/12/13 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|10.4                        |10.5

--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.

[Bug fortran/60576] [11/12/13/14 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|10.5                        |11.5

--- Comment #38 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10 branch is being closed.