From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3171 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2015 18:31:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3093 invoked by uid 48); 4 Feb 2015 18:31:44 -0000 From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/64921] [4.9/5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:31:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-02/txt/msg00346.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #6) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2) > > I got > > > > Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory > > reference. > > > > Backtrace for this error: > > #0 0xF763FACE > > #1 0xF763EBDE > > #2 0xF773CBBF > > #3 0x8048BA5 in __final_main_T2.3337 at class_allocate_18.f90:? > > #4 0x8048D68 in __final_main_T3.3328 at class_allocate_18.f90:? > > #5 0x8048A59 in MAIN__ at class_allocate_18.f90:? > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90 -O1 execution test > > > > But I couldn't reproduce it on another machine. I will keep an eye on it. > > Hi HJ, > > Given that the error is sporadic, are you sure that the offending revisions > are not 220125 and 220130 - PR64230. The error messages that you are getting > are remarkably similar to the original report for this PR. > I don't know for sure. This failure seems more consistent on 4.9 branch than on trunk.