http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174
--- Comment #6 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz 2012-11-05 00:52:10 UTC --- On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, John Harper wrote: > Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:02:37 +1300 (NZDT) > From: John Harper <har...@msor.vuw.ac.nz> > To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: [Bug fortran/55174] [4.6 Regression] Segmentation fault with bad > array reference > > On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > >> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:23:40 +0000 >> From: janus at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> >> To: john.har...@vuw.ac.nz >> Subject: [Bug fortran/55174] [4.6 Regression] Segmentation fault with bad >> array reference >> Resent-Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:24:00 +0000 >> Resent-From: <john.har...@vuw.ac.nz> >> >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174 >> >> janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Status|NEW |RESOLVED >> Resolution| |DUPLICATE >> >> --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 22:23:40 UTC --- >> (In reply to comment #3) >>> I have just tried gfortran 4.7.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) and it >>> gave the internal compiler error with my program. So it seems that >>> 4.7.0 and 4.7.1 both have the bug and 4.7.2 does not. >> >> Good. So it has been fixed between 4.7.1 and 4.7.2, apparently by this >> commit: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191216 >> >> This is the fix for PR 54225, and the good news is that it has also been >> backported to the 4.6 branch and therefore will be part of the future 4.6.4 >> release. >> >> So I think we can just close this as a duplicate of PR 54225. >> >> Nevertheless, thanks for the bug report! >> >> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 54225 *** >> >> -- >> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email >> ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- >> You reported the bug. > > You may well be right. I'll be convinced if your analysis also explains > why the bug was there in 4.8.0 of 20120701 but not in 4.8.0 of 20121002. Apologies - I should have looked carefully at the dates for bug 54225. The bug was fixed between 20120701 and 20121002 so you are indeed right. -- John Harper, School of Mathematics Statistics and Operations Research Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand e-mail john.har...@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5276 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
