[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin --- Fixed for gfortran 14. Closing.
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:616a101848bfd5b61ffdd87ae9b1153139d916ca commit r14-2507-g616a101848bfd5b61ffdd87ae9b1153139d916ca Author: Mikael Morin Date: Thu Jul 13 21:23:44 2023 +0200 fortran: Release symbols in reversed order [PR106050] Release symbols in reversed order wrt the order they were allocated. This fixes an error recovery ICE in the case of a misplaced derived type declaration. Such a declaration creates nested symbols, one for the derived type and one for each type parameter, which should be immediately released as the declaration is rejected. This breaks if the derived type is released first. As the type parameter symbols are in the namespace of the derived type, releasing the derived type releases the type parameters, so one can't access them after that, even to release them. Hence, the type parameters should be released first. PR fortran/106050 gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: * symbol.cc (gfc_restore_last_undo_checkpoint): Release symbols in reverse order. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gfortran.dg/pdt_33.f90: New test.
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> > Possibly walking the symbols in reverse order to release them would fix
> > this.
> >
> It seems to work:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> index 37a9e8fa0ae..4a71d84b3fe 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> @@ -3661,7 +3661,7 @@ gfc_restore_last_undo_checkpoint (void)
>gfc_symbol *p;
>unsigned i;
>
> - FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (latest_undo_chgset->syms, i, p)
> + FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT_REVERSE (latest_undo_chgset->syms, i, p)
> {
>/* Symbol in a common block was new. Or was old and just put in
> common */
>if (p->common_block
So does this:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
index 37a9e8fa0ae..ada8cb2ba83 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
@@ -3703,6 +3703,10 @@ gfc_restore_last_undo_checkpoint (void)
}
p->common_next = NULL;
}
+
+ if (!strlen(p->name))
+ continue;
+
if (p->gfc_new)
{
/* The derived type is saved in the symtree with the first
I think that yours is likely to be better though. Have you understood why the
symbol order matters in this case?
BTW pr99798 is another ref counting ICE; this time involving namespaces.
Paul
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> Possibly walking the symbols in reverse order to release them would fix this.
>
It seems to work:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
index 37a9e8fa0ae..4a71d84b3fe 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
@@ -3661,7 +3661,7 @@ gfc_restore_last_undo_checkpoint (void)
gfc_symbol *p;
unsigned i;
- FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (latest_undo_chgset->syms, i, p)
+ FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT_REVERSE (latest_undo_chgset->syms, i, p)
{
/* Symbol in a common block was new. Or was old and just put in common
*/
if (p->common_block
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin --- When matching statement "type t(k)", two symbols are created, one for t and one for k. t is in gfc_current_ns and k is in t's f2k_derived namespace. If the statement is rejected, both t and k need to be freed. But one should care about ordering, as the release of t frees f2k_derived, which is k's namespace, so k should be released before t. I haven't checked that the above actually is the problem here, but it might be. Possibly walking the symbols in reverse order to release them would fix this. Regarding the patches posted, if sym->refs < 0 is true, then the memory for sym has already been released and may be garbage (including sym->refs). A crash is as good as anything else at this point IMHO.
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 --- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 55515 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55515=edit Patch that fixes this PR for me I had to add to Steve's patch to get this PR sorted out. Ideally of course, we would locate the culprit in the PDT instantiation and fix that. However, I am disinclined to do that since PDTs require roots and branches fixing. At least this patch is mostly harmless! Paul
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 --- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > Likely started with r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7, it was rejected before the > revision anyway. With all branches up to 13-branch, I see: ../pr105594/pr106050.f90:3:12: 3 |type t(k) |1 Error: Unexpected derived type declaration statement at (1) (null):0: confused by earlier errors, bailing out With trunk, I get: ../pr105594/pr106050.f90:3:12: 3 |type t(k) |1 Error: Unexpected derived type declaration statement at (1) f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 0x101683f crash_signal ../../gcc/gcc/toplev.cc:314 0x9228ca delete_root ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/bbt.cc:150 0x922a8e gfc_delete_bbt(void*, void*, int (*)(void*, void*)) ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/bbt.cc:197 0xa0923c gfc_delete_symtree(gfc_symtree**, char .. I will be attaching a patch that works for me. Paul
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4
[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE in reject_statement, at |ICE in reject_statement, at |fortran/parse.cc:2879 |fortran/parse.cc:2879 since ||r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7 CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org, ||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Likely started with r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7, it was rejected before the revision anyway.
