From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-458883-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11436 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2014 16:30:04 -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
Received: (qmail 11317 invoked by uid 48); 20 Aug 2014 16:30:00 -0000
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/62188] Array bounds overrun in bessel_yn_r4/8/16 and other functions
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:30:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-62188-4-9KoNb9WESi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-62188-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-62188-4@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: 2014-08/txt/msg01380.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #3)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > I assume you found this by using a libc with
> > a malloc that has buffer overflow detection.
> 
> Actually, no.  We inspected the function manually looking for the
> cause of a test FAIL of bessel_7.f90 and just stumbled across it.

Ah, bessel_7.f90.  This test has some tolerances that are at the
very edge of numerical accuracy.  If your underlying libm implementation
of yn is poor, you'll get FAIL[ures].

> > I'll commit this later.
> 
> Great.

Committed to trunk and all open branches.

Thanks for the bug report.