From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-493555-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 72512 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2015 12:31:58 -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 72415 invoked by uid 55); 28 Jul 2015 12:31:54 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/64921] [4.9/5/6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:31:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64921-4-eOENzIvrO9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64921-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64921-4@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: 2015-07/txt/msg02445.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921

--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
> 
> --- Comment #22 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #21)
> > Transfer.4 _is_ null in the case we segfault.  So the guard us clearly wrong.
> > 
> OK, let's try something else.
> Are you positive transfer.4 is null?
> I don't see anything that would make it so.

>>From inspecting registers and the assembly.  The debugger cannot get
at the artificial decls.

> If it is transfer.10 that is  null, I can see the call to __final_main_T2 that
> is suspicious; it seems to pass a descriptorless array to an argument expecting
> a descriptor.
> 
> Draft patch, seems to fix it
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/class.c b/gcc/fortran/class.c
> index 218973d..7a9e275 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/class.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/class.c
> @@ -1599,6 +1599,7 @@ generate_finalization_wrapper (gfc_symbol *derived,
> gfc_namespace *ns,
>    final->ts.type = BT_INTEGER;
>    final->ts.kind = 4;
>    final->attr.artificial = 1;
> +  final->attr.always_explicit = 1;
>    final->attr.if_source = expr_null_wrapper ? IFSRC_IFBODY : IFSRC_DECL;
>    if (ns->proc_name->attr.flavor == FL_MODULE)
>      final->module = ns->proc_name->name;

even better