https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #10 from Neil Carlson ---
Thanks Harald for hunting this down!
I've tested your patch on master with -fsanitize=address against my library
that turned up these errors and it all looks good now. Is it possible to back
port this to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #6 from Neil Carlson ---
Here's a variation of the example involving arrays. I expect the source of the
failure here is the same, but I want to be sure this example is also fixed by
the eventual patch.
program main
call run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
Same results with 13.2.0 configured with --enable-valgrind-annotations.
Here's the output with 13.2.0 and gfortran -g -O0 -fsanitize=address foo.f90 :
==1126830==ERROR: AddressSanitizer:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #3 from Neil Carlson ---
Those results are with 12.3.0 configured with --enable-valgrind-annotations.
I'm building 13.2.0 now with the same to see if more info is generated. (I
don't typically use 13.x because it finalization is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
I should add that I get the same results with gcc versions going back to at
least gcc 11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114827
Bug ID: 114827
Summary: Valgrind reports errors with class(*) assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112964
Bug ID: 112964
Summary: ICE for recursive subroutine with assumed rank
class(*) argument
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
Bug is still present in 13.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #12 from Neil Carlson ---
Paul,
> [...] there are some humdingers going back a long way that I will take a look
> at,
> once I am done with associate.
That would be great, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #9 from Neil Carlson ---
>
> (i) Have I got the lot?
>
I believe so.
> (ii) Are there existing PRs for the two most recent?
>
I always try to report the bugs at the same time they go into my
"database". The first is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #7 from Neil Carlson ---
> Was it as a result of the nagfor error, perhaps? If so, have you already sent
> them a bug report?
I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfor, but
confirm that it gets it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #5 from Neil Carlson ---
>> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
>
> I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be okay
> (i.e., not rejected) and it wasn't. Sorry for the confusion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
Hi Paul,
> !x%var_ptr() = 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to be okay
(i.e., not rejected) and it wasn't. Sorry for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
Bug ID: 110224
Summary: Rejects valid: function reference with data pointer
result as lhs in assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110033
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
This must be related to PR78152
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110033
Bug ID: 110033
Summary: rejects-valid: associate name corresponding to coarray
selector should be considered a coarray
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110012
Bug ID: 110012
Summary: ICE involving parametrized polymorphic variable
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #8 from Neil Carlson ---
We've been bitten by what looks to be the same bug in our large Fortran code:
245 | end module kuprat_mapper_type
| 1
Error: Contained procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109846
--- Comment #2 from Neil Carlson ---
Amusing! I have a regression in 13.1 (which I need to create a reproducer for)
where the workaround for a segfault is to use a RESULT variable -- just the
opposite :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109846
Bug ID: 109846
Summary: [rejects valid] Pointer-valued function reference
rejected as actual argument
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104630
Bug ID: 104630
Summary: module subroutine not accessible from submodule
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103394
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
I've experimented some more and have reduced things further to this example.
I'm not positive it captures everything that is going wrong in the original.
program example
type :: foo
end type
type :: bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103394
Bug ID: 103394
Summary: Bad object code for structure constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100815
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
Actually it looks like the regression was introduced in 10.3. It works in 10.2
and earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100815
Bug ID: 100815
Summary: [11 regression] Segfault assigning to scalar
allocatable polymorphic LHS
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93762
--- Comment #4 from Neil Carlson ---
It would be great if somebody possessing the necessary skills could invest the
time to fix this. For me this is bug breaks a common usage pattern of including
optional stat, errmsg arguments to procedure
26 matches
Mail list logo
