* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
@ 2020-03-21 10:34 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-21 21:10 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-21 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |10.0, 9.3.0
Known to work| |8.4.0
Last reconfirmed| |2020-03-21
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Blocks| |63426
Summary|valgrind error for |[9/10 Regression] valgrind
|./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 |error for
| |./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90
| |since
| |r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
CC| |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, started with r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
[Bug 63426] [meta-bug] Issues found with -fsanitize=undefined
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2020-03-21 10:34 ` [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-21 21:10 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-21 22:27 ` dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-21 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> I just tried a valgrind version of recent trunk gfortran over testsuite file
> gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90.
>
> I got
>
> $ /home/dcb/gcc/results.20200320.valgrind/bin/gfortran -c
> ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90
> ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90:64:50:
>
> 64 | if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10)
> ])) &
> | 1
> Error: Result of BESSEL_YN overflows its kind at (1)
> ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90:64:26:
>
> 64 | if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10)
> ])) &
> | 1
> Error: Result of BESSEL_YN is -INF at (1)
> ==1776287== Invalid read of size 8
> ==1776287== at 0x603913: reduce_binary_ac(arith (*)(gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*,
> gfc_expr**), gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*, gfc_expr**) (arith.c:1325)
> ==1776287== by 0x60397A: reduce_binary_ac(arith (*)(gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*,
> gfc_expr**), gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*, gfc_expr**) (arith.c:1312)
> ==1776287== by 0x603B34: reduce_binary(arith (*)(gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*,
> gfc_expr**), gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*, gfc_expr**) (arith.c:1438)
> ==1776287== by 0x603F72: eval_intrinsic(gfc_intrinsic_op, eval_f,
> gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*) (arith.c:1613)
>
> Please note I didn't use the recommended testsuite flags of
> -Wall -fno-range-check.
>
So, what happens if you do use the required -fno-range-check
option?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2020-03-21 10:34 ` [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-21 21:10 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-21 22:27 ` dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2020-03-21 23:04 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: dcb314 at hotmail dot com @ 2020-03-21 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> So, what happens if you do use the required -fno-range-check
> option?
The code is compiled happily:
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results.20200320.valgrind/bin/gfortran -c -Wall
-fno-range-check gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90
$
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-21 22:27 ` dcb314 at hotmail dot com
@ 2020-03-21 23:04 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2020-03-23 7:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2020-03-21 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:27:03PM +0000, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
>
> --- Comment #3 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > So, what happens if you do use the required -fno-range-check
> > option?
>
> The code is compiled happily:
>
> $ /home/dcb/gcc/results.20200320.valgrind/bin/gfortran -c -Wall
> -fno-range-check gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90
So, the code should be closed with WONTFIX or INVALID.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-21 23:04 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2020-03-23 7:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-23 16:21 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-23 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |error-recovery,
| |ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It's still a valid bugreport, the compiler shouldn't crash even on invalid
programs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-23 7:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-23 16:21 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2020-03-23 19:29 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2020-03-23 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:35:54AM +0000, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
>
> Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keywords| |error-recovery,
> | |ice-on-invalid-code
> Priority|P3 |P5
>
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> It's still a valid bugreport, the compiler shouldn't crash even on invalid
> programs.
>
I disagree.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-23 16:21 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2020-03-23 19:29 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-23 19:54 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-23 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I get an ICE even for the non-valgrind version on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu:
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90:64:50:
64 | if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10) ]))
&
| 1
Error: Result of BESSEL_YN overflows its kind at (1)
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90:64:26:
64 | if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10) ]))
&
| 1
Error: Result of BESSEL_YN is -INF at (1)
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xd4aedf crash_signal
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/toplev.c:328
0x65ae4f reduce_binary_ac
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/arith.c:1325
0x65aee2 reduce_binary_ac
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/arith.c:1312
0x65b034 reduce_binary
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/arith.c:1438
0x65b35b eval_intrinsic
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/arith.c:1613
0x6965f8 simplify_intrinsic_op
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c:1219
0x6965f8 gfc_simplify_expr(gfc_expr*, int)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c:2233
0x708c89 resolve_operator
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:4377
0x706177 gfc_resolve_expr(gfc_expr*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:7022
0x70993f gfc_resolve_expr(gfc_expr*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:2162
0x70993f resolve_actual_arglist
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:2081
0x70654e resolve_function
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3183
0x70654e gfc_resolve_expr(gfc_expr*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:7029
0x70e7d1 gfc_resolve_expr(gfc_expr*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:6996
0x70e7d1 gfc_resolve_blocks(gfc_code*, gfc_namespace*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:10618
0x6fe518 gfc_resolve_code(gfc_code*, gfc_namespace*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:11706
0x700d9d resolve_codes
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:17233
0x700e6e gfc_resolve(gfc_namespace*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:17268
0x6ef01d resolve_all_program_units
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/parse.c:6245
0x6ef01d gfc_parse_file()
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/fortran/parse.c:6492
I agree with Richard that this should not happen.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-23 19:29 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-23 19:54 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-23 20:20 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-23 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase:
implicit none
integer :: i
if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10) ])) &
then
STOP 6
end if
if (any (abs (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 1.0) &
- [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 1.0), i = 0, 10) ]) &
> epsilon(0.0)*32)) then
STOP 8
end if
end
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-23 19:54 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-23 20:20 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2020-03-24 17:48 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2020-03-23 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:29:02PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I get an ICE even for the non-valgrind version on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu:
>
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90:64:50:
>
> 64 | if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10) ]))
> &
> | 1
> Error: Result of BESSEL_YN overflows its kind at (1)
> gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90:64:26:
>
> 64 | if (any (BESSEL_YN(0, 10, 0.0) /= [ (BESSEL_YN(i, 0.0), i = 0, 10) ]))
> &
> | 1
> Error: Result of BESSEL_YN is -INF at (1)
> f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
(snip)
>
> I agree with Richard that this should not happen.
>
1. Fix the errors that are already emitted. It won't happen.
2. Use -fmax-errors = 1. It won't happen. -fmax-errors=1 should
be the default. Unfortunately, the GCC diagnosistic has usurped
that option.
3. Write correct Fortran. It won't happen.
4. Apply this patch. Watch for cut-n-paste tab corruption.
ndex: gcc/fortran/arith.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/arith.c (revision 280157)
+++ gcc/fortran/arith.c (working copy)
@@ -1322,6 +1322,12 @@ reduce_binary_ac (arith (*eval) (gfc_expr *, gfc_expr
else
{
gfc_constructor *c = gfc_constructor_first (head);
+
+ if (!c)
+ gfc_fatal_error ("\"To handle a language skillfully is to "
+ "practice a kind of evocative sorcery.\" "
+ "Charles Baudelaire");
+
r = gfc_get_array_expr (c->expr->ts.type, c->expr->ts.kind,
&op1->where);
r->shape = gfc_copy_shape (op1->shape, op1->rank);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-23 20:20 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2020-03-24 17:48 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-01 9:58 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-24 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 48108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48108&action=edit
Fix for problem with one regression
The attached fixes the problem but causes pr35849.f90 to regress in a rather
peculiar fashion:
pr35849.f90:5:55:
5 | INTEGER, PARAMETER, DIMENSION(10) :: B = ISHFTC(j, A, -20) ! {
dg-error "must be positive" }
| 1
Error: SIZE at (1) must be positive
pr35849.f90:6:57:
6 | INTEGER, PARAMETER, DIMENSION(10) :: C = ISHFTC(1_1, A, j) ! {
dg-error "less than or equal to BIT_SIZE" }
| 1
Error: ‘SIZE’ at (1) must be less than or equal to BIT_SIZE(‘I’)
pr35849.f90:7:51:
7 | INTEGER, PARAMETER, DIMENSION(10) :: D = ISHFTC(3, A, 5) ! { dg-error
"Absolute value of SHIFT shall be less than or equal" }
| 1
Error: Invalid character in name at (1)
pr35849.f90:8:51:
8 | INTEGER, PARAMETER, DIMENSION(10) :: E = ISHFTC(3_1, A) ! { dg-error
"second argument of ISHFTC exceeds BIT_SIZE of first argument" }
| 1
Error: Invalid character in name at (1)
The last two error come from match.c and must be left overs that have not been
cleared.
Cheers
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9/10 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-24 17:48 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-01 9:58 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-29 20:52 ` [Bug fortran/94246] [9 " anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-01 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This issue was solved for GCC 10 = mainline by the following commit.
Note: This commit caused PR94386.
Note: As the commit message did not use the PR <category>/<bugid> syntax, the
commit was not automatically added to the PR :-(
commit r10-7444-g7d57570b0658b8c1b8a97dafa53dfd4ab4bd3f65
Author: Paul Thomas <pault@pc30.home>
Date: Sat Mar 28 19:11:35 2020 +0000
Patch for PR94246
+ PR fortran/94246
+ * arith.c : Remove trailing white space.
+ * expr.c (scalarize_intrinsic_call): Remove the error checking.
+ Make a copy of the expression to be simplified and only replace
+ the original if the simplification succeeds.
+ PR fortran/94348
+ * decl.c (gfc_match_submod_proc): Add result var to the
+ proc's namespace.
[SIC! – the last PR seems to be wrong.]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-01 9:58 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-29 20:52 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-13 19:58 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-29 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work| |10.0
Summary|[9/10 Regression] valgrind |[9 Regression] valgrind
|error for |error for
|./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 |./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90
|since |since
|r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41 |r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
Known to fail|10.0 |
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> This issue was solved for GCC 10 = mainline by the following commit.
>
> commit r10-7444-g7d57570b0658b8c1b8a97dafa53dfd4ab4bd3f65
Thus marking as 9 regression.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-29 20:52 ` [Bug fortran/94246] [9 " anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-07-13 19:58 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-01-04 8:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-04 9:08 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2020-07-13 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2020-07-13 19:58 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2021-01-04 8:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-04 9:08 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-04 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f448af69b208ba95496748c4596a22d11b1a09b9
commit r9-9148-gf448af69b208ba95496748c4596a22d11b1a09b9
Author: Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Mon Jan 4 08:15:18 2021 +0000
Fortran: Fix scalarization of constant expressions. [PR94246].
2021-01-04 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/94246
* expr.c (scalarize_intrinsic_call): Remove the error checking.
Make a copy of the expression to be simplified and only replace
the original if the simplification succeeds.
gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/94246
* gfortran.dg/bessel_5_redux.f90 : New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/94246] [9 Regression] valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 since r9-1566-g87c789f1c0b2df41
2020-03-21 9:14 [Bug fortran/94246] New: valgrind error for ./gfortran.dg/bessel_5.f90 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-04 8:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-01-04 9:08 ` pault at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-01-04 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94246
Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on 9-, 10- and 11- branches.
Thanks for the reports.
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread