* [Bug fortran/66528] unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free
2015-06-13 8:32 [Bug fortran/66528] New: unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-13 10:51 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-13 11:18 ` [Bug fortran/66528] [6 Regression] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-13 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66528
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Much better with a test case, of course.
program main
read (*,*) n
if (n<0) then
print *,foo
end
print *,bar
end program main
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/66528] [6 Regression] unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free
2015-06-13 8:32 [Bug fortran/66528] New: unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-13 10:51 ` [Bug fortran/66528] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-13 11:18 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2015-06-14 16:25 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2015-06-13 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66528
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work| |5.1.0
Keywords| |error-recovery
Last reconfirmed| |2015-06-13
CC| |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|unbalanced IF/ENDIF with |[6 Regression] unbalanced
|-fmax-errors=1 causes |IF/ENDIF with
|invalid free |-fmax-errors=1 causes
| |invalid free
Known to fail| |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Much better with a test case, of course.
Indeed!-) Revision r223447 (2015-05-20) gives
Error: END IF statement expected at (1)
compilation terminated due to -fmax-errors=1.
Revision r223694 (2015-05-26) gives
compilation terminated due to -fmax-errors=1.
f951(2326,0x7fff7bef0300) malloc: *** error for object 0x1412fd9a8: pointer
being freed was not allocated
*** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug
(null):0: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
f951(2326,0x7fff7bef0300) malloc: *** error for object 0x142002200: pointer
being freed was not allocated
*** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug
Usual suspect r223677 (pr66082).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/66528] [6 Regression] unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free
2015-06-13 8:32 [Bug fortran/66528] New: unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-13 10:51 ` [Bug fortran/66528] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-13 11:18 ` [Bug fortran/66528] [6 Regression] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2015-06-14 16:25 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-17 16:21 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-24 22:17 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-14 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66528
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #3)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
>
> > Usual suspect r223677 (pr66082).
>
> I don't believe that a change to trans-array.c can cause
> a parsing failure. I would rather suspect r223614 .
Yes, this is my fault. diagnostic_finish tries to free the output_buffer, but
the error_buffer is statically allocated. I think this should be enough:
--- error.c (revision 223651)
+++ error.c (working copy)
@@ -1379,12 +1379,12 @@ gfc_error_check (void)
output_buffer *tmp_buffer = pp->buffer;
pp->buffer = pp_error_buffer;
pp_really_flush (pp);
++errorcount;
gcc_assert (gfc_output_buffer_empty_p (pp_error_buffer));
- diagnostic_action_after_output (global_dc, DK_ERROR);
pp->buffer = tmp_buffer;
+ diagnostic_action_after_output (global_dc, DK_ERROR);
return true;
}
return false;
}
However, a better fix may be to make the error_buffer also dynamically
allocated like the warning_buffer. Not sure why I did the change.
(It would be nice to have a testcase testing this in the regression testsuite.)
> Here is the first error reported by valgrind:
>
> ==1154== Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc()
> ==1154== at 0x4C28ADC: free (in
> /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
> ==1154== by 0x126B11B: diagnostic_finish(diagnostic_context*)
> (diagnostic.c:230)
> ==1154== by 0x126BF11:
> diagnostic_action_after_output(diagnostic_context*, diagnostic_t)
> (diagnostic.c:566)
> ==1154== by 0x63FB0B: gfc_error_check() (error.c:1384)
> ==1154== by 0x687E47: decode_statement() (parse.c:554)
> ==1154== by 0x689740: next_statement() (parse.c:1048)
> ==1154== by 0x68BA0C: parse_executable(gfc_statement) (parse.c:4593)
> ==1154== by 0x68C430: parse_executable(gfc_statement) (parse.c:3519)
> ==1154== by 0x68CA06: parse_progunit(gfc_statement) (parse.c:4976)
> ==1154== by 0x68E167: gfc_parse_file() (parse.c:5424)
> ==1154== by 0x6CE642: gfc_be_parse_file() (f95-lang.c:215)
> ==1154== by 0xBCA44E: compile_file() (toplev.c:560)
> ==1154== Address 0x1cfefa8 is 8 bytes inside data symbol "_ZL12error_buffer"
>From gcc-bugs-return-488958-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Jun 14 17:06:42 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-488958-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 130405 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2015 17:06:42 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 130352 invoked by uid 48); 14 Jun 2015 17:06:38 -0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ada/66242] Front-end error if exception propagation disabled
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:06:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ada
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
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: cf_gcctarget bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on cc cf_gcchost everconfirmed bug_severity
Message-ID: <bug-66242-4-42MYhNPLzO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66242-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66242-4@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: 2015-06/txt/msg01290.txt.bz2
Content-length: 693
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf242
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|arm-eabi, |
|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2015-06-14
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Host|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/66528] [6 Regression] unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free
2015-06-13 8:32 [Bug fortran/66528] New: unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-14 16:25 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-17 16:21 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-24 22:17 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-17 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66528
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> diagnostic_finish tries to free the output_buffer,
> but the error_buffer is statically allocated. I think this should be enough:
>
> --- error.c (revision 223651)
> +++ error.c (working copy)
> @@ -1379,12 +1379,12 @@ gfc_error_check (void)
> output_buffer *tmp_buffer = pp->buffer;
> pp->buffer = pp_error_buffer;
> pp_really_flush (pp);
> ++errorcount;
> gcc_assert (gfc_output_buffer_empty_p (pp_error_buffer));
> - diagnostic_action_after_output (global_dc, DK_ERROR);
> pp->buffer = tmp_buffer;
> + diagnostic_action_after_output (global_dc, DK_ERROR);
> return true;
> }
>
> return false;
> }
>
> However, a better fix may be to make the error_buffer also dynamically
> allocated like the warning_buffer. Not sure why I did the change.
I think either version would be OK, but I agree that making
the error_buffer dynamic would be better.
> (It would be nice to have a testcase testing this in the regression
> testsuite.)
Easy enough to generate from the test case in comment #2.
>From gcc-bugs-return-489219-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jun 17 16:31:56 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-489219-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 104244 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2015 16:31:55 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 104206 invoked by uid 48); 17 Jun 2015 16:31:51 -0000
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/65317] [SH] Shifts used instead of and with const_int
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:31:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
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: <bug-65317-4-srESBEJd47@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65317-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65317-4@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: 2015-06/txt/msg01551.txt.bz2
Content-length: 654
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ide317
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
> It seems that it's better to allow any constant for the *andsi_compact
> pattern and split out the constant load if it doesn't fit into K08. An and
> with constant 0x80000000 could be treated as a special case to emit the
> shorter sequence:
> shll r4
> movt r0
> rts
> rotr r0
On SH4A the following sequence is better, because imm8 constant loads are in
the MT group:
shll r4
mov #0,r0
rts
rotcr r0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/66528] [6 Regression] unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free
2015-06-13 8:32 [Bug fortran/66528] New: unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-17 16:21 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-24 22:17 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-24 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66528
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Jun 24 22:16:42 2015
New Revision: 224926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
The problem is that diagnostic_action_after_output tries to delete the active
pretty-printer which tries to delete its output_buffer, which is normally
dynamically allocated via placement-new, but the output_buffer used by the
error_buffer of Fortran is statically allocated. Being statically allocated
simplifies a lot pushing/poping several instances of error_buffer.
The solution is to reset the active output_buffer back to the default one
before calling diagnostic_action_after_output. This is a bit ugly, because this
function does use the output_buffer, however, at the point that Fortran calls
it, both are in an equivalent state, thus there is no visible difference.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-06-24 Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/66528
* gfortran.dg/maxerrors.f90: New test.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2015-06-24 Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/66528
* error.c (gfc_warning_check): Restore the default output_buffer
before calling diagnostic_action_after_output.
(gfc_error_check): Likewise.
(gfc_diagnostics_init): Add comment.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/maxerrors.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/error.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>From gcc-bugs-return-490139-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jun 24 22:18:28 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-490139-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 76449 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2015 22:18:28 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 76012 invoked by uid 48); 24 Jun 2015 22:18:24 -0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/66528] [6 Regression] unbalanced IF/ENDIF with -fmax-errors=1 causes invalid free
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:18:00 -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: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: error-recovery
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-66528-4-fYaEwO8cDw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66528-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66528-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg02471.txt.bz2
Content-length: 474
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66528
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for GCC 6
>From gcc-bugs-return-490140-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Jun 24 22:19:33 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-490140-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 78565 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2015 22:19:33 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 78505 invoked by uid 48); 24 Jun 2015 22:19:28 -0000
From: "kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/66563] [4.9 Regression] ICE (segmentation fault) on sh4-linux-gnu
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:19:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-66563-4-RAGg8pRIfp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66563-4@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: 2015-06/txt/msg02472.txt.bz2
Content-length: 595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf563
--- Comment #35 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #33)
> I see, thanks. In this case, could you please add a comment e.g.:
>
> ;; Loads of the GOTPC relocation values must not be optimized away
> ;; by e.g. any kind of CSE and must stay as they are. Although there
> ;; are other various ways to ensure this, we use an artificial counter
> ;; operand to generate unique symbols.
> (define_expand "GOTaddr2picreg"
Good thinking. I've committed the patch with your comment on trunk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread