https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7) > > Works for me here! > > Are you sure that you have tested > > print "(f8.0)", huge(1.0) > print "(f18.0)", huge(1.0_8) > print "(f20.0)", huge(1.0_10) > print "(f40.0)", huge(1.0_16) > end > > ? $ cat pr77393-b.f90 print "(f8.0)", huge(1.0) print "(f18.0)", huge(1.0_8) print "(f20.0)", huge(1.0_10) print "(f40.0)", huge(1.0_16) end $ gfc pr77393-b.f90 $ ./a.out ******** ****************** ******************** **************************************** $ gfc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gfc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/jerry/dev/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../trunk/configure --prefix=/home/jerry/dev/usr --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-libmudflap --enable-libgomp --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20160831 (experimental) (GCC) Yes, as posted. I suspect, assuming you are on Darwin, that the implementation of snprintf emits a larger number of bytes. I found on the system here that it emits the number of characters I used in the routine with the adders. Can you test by changing the define in write.c line 1349: #define BUF_STACK_SZ 256 to something absurd like 6000. Then run this and see how large the strings are: program testbigf0 ! Can enormous numbers be printed with F0.0 format? implicit none character(10000) :: str write(str,"(f0.0)") -huge(1.0) print *, len(trim(str)) write(str,"(f0.0)") -huge(1.0_8) print *, len(trim(str)) write(str,"(f0.0)") -huge(1.0_10) print *, len(trim(str)) write(str,"(f0.0)") -huge(1.0_16) print *, len(trim(str)) end program testbigf0 Also using gdb can you see where the segfault occurs with the pr77393-b.f90 version above.
