https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94386
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to markeggleston from comment #12)
> Created attachment 48155 [details]
> Proposed fix
>
> Sorry for the duplicate (PR94430) I missed this PR.
>
> The cause of the errors messages is due to most of the code in expr.c
> introduced by PR93600 being deleted.
>
> I restored the code, the error went away, however, bessel_5_redux.f90
> resulted in an ICE.
>
> When this bit of PR94246 is put back:
>
> @@ -2314,9 +2296,8 @@ scalarize_intrinsic_call (gfc_expr *e, bool init_flag)
> gfc_constructor_base ctor;
> gfc_constructor *args[5] = {}; /* Avoid uninitialized warnings. */
> gfc_constructor *ci, *new_ctor;
> - gfc_expr *expr, *old;
> + gfc_expr *expr, *old, *p;
> int n, i, rank[5], array_arg;
> - int errors = 0;
>
> if (e == NULL)
> return false;
> @@ -2384,8 +2365,6 @@ scalarize_intrinsic_call (gfc_expr *e, bool init_flag)
> n++;
> }
>
> - gfc_get_errors (NULL, &errors);
> -
> /* Using the array argument as the master, step through the array
> calling the function for each element and advancing the array
> constructors together. */
> @@ -2419,8 +2398,12 @@ scalarize_intrinsic_call (gfc_expr *e, bool init_flag)
> /* Simplify the function calls. If the simplification fails, the
> error will be flagged up down-stream or the library will deal
> with it. */
> - if (errors == 0)
> - gfc_simplify_expr (new_ctor->expr, 0);
> + p = gfc_copy_expr (new_ctor->expr);
> +
> + if (!gfc_simplify_expr (p, init_flag))
> + gfc_free_expr (p);
> + else
> + gfc_replace_expr (new_ctor->expr, p);
>
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
> if (args[i])
>
> bessel_5_redux.f90.
>
> I think
>
> if (errors == 0)
> gfc_simplify_expr (new_ctor->expr, 0);
>
> caused the ICE.
>
Hi Mark,
Yes, indeed that was the problem. The simplification of the scalar expression
was coming back with a false but no error, which then fed a broken array
expression to the next stage of simplification and this caused the segfault.
I have a real problem to understand how I was able to do this without git
throwing a wobbler. Previously I have been firmly and vociferously prevented
from doing such things but on this occasion was allowed to screw things up.
I am a total tyro with git and don't have over much time outside of my
professional commitments to study the documentation. I would be grateful, if
either you or one of the others in copy to this PR could point me to a set of
clearly described workflows. Compared to svn, git seems to me to be
unpleasantly ass-backwards.
Many thanks for fixing the mess that I made. Bizarrely, the COVID-19 crisis has
me busier than ever even though working from home. I was aware that there was
time pressure but just could not respond to it.
Thanks again
Paul
