[Bug c/61342] New: Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP task

[Bug c/61342] New: Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP task

[philippe.virouleau at imag dot fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61342

            Bug ID: 61342
           Summary: Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP
                    task
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.10.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: philippe.virouleau at imag dot fr

Created attachment 32871
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32871&action=edit
produced output

I got a segmentation fault from gcc when compiling a code using variable length
array inside an open mp task, with "default(none)" specified.
The minimal example that triggers the segfault with my gcc is the following : 

int main()
{
    int x = 2;
    int y = 2;
    double f_[2][2];
    double (*f)[x][y] = (double (*)[x][y])f_;
#pragma omp parallel
#pragma omp master
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < x; i++)
            for (int j = 0; j < y; j++)
#pragma omp task default(none) shared(f) firstprivate(i, j)
            {
                (*f)[i][j] = 1;
            }
    }
}

Attached is the is the produced stacktrace (with command line and gcc version),
and my operating system is Debian (Linux daisy 3.14-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian
3.14.4-1 (2014-05-13) x86_64 GNU/Linux).
Note that removing the "default(none)" makes the code compile normally

[Bug c/61342] Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP task

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61342

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

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

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed by the PR85696 fix.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 85696 ***