[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-20 21:58 --- Subject: Bug 33288 Author: fxcoudert Date: Thu Sep 20 21:58:23 2007 New Revision: 128632 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=128632 Log: PR fortran/33288 * arith.c (reduce_unary, reduce_binary_ac, reduce_binary_ca, reduce_binary_aa): Call ourselves recursively if an element of the constructor is itself a constant array. * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_19.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_19.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/arith.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-20 21:58 --- Fixed. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-19 11:52
---
Mine. A straightforward patch following the idea laid in my previous comment
fixes it.
Index: arith.c
===
--- arith.c (revision 128540)
+++ arith.c (working copy)
@@ -1288,7 +1288,11 @@ reduce_unary (arith (*eval) (gfc_expr *,
for (c = head; c; c = c-next)
{
- rc = eval (c-expr, r);
+ if (c-expr-expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT)
+ rc = eval (c-expr, r);
+ else
+ rc = reduce_unary (eval, c-expr, r);
+
if (rc != ARITH_OK)
break;
@@ -1328,7 +1332,11 @@ reduce_binary_ac (arith (*eval) (gfc_exp
for (c = head; c; c = c-next)
{
- rc = eval (c-expr, op2, r);
+ if (c-expr-expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT)
+rc = eval (c-expr, op2, r);
+ else
+ rc = reduce_binary_ac (eval, c-expr, op2, r);
+
if (rc != ARITH_OK)
break;
@@ -1368,7 +1376,11 @@ reduce_binary_ca (arith (*eval) (gfc_exp
for (c = head; c; c = c-next)
{
- rc = eval (op1, c-expr, r);
+ if (c-expr-expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT)
+ rc = eval (op1, c-expr, r);
+ else
+ rc = reduce_binary_ca (eval, op1, c-expr, r);
+
if (rc != ARITH_OK)
break;
@@ -1395,6 +1407,11 @@ reduce_binary_ca (arith (*eval) (gfc_exp
}
+/* We need a forward declaration of reduce_binary. */
+static arith reduce_binary (arith (*eval) (gfc_expr *, gfc_expr *, gfc_expr
**),
+ gfc_expr *op1, gfc_expr *op2, gfc_expr **result);
+
+
static arith
reduce_binary_aa (arith (*eval) (gfc_expr *, gfc_expr *, gfc_expr **),
gfc_expr *op1, gfc_expr *op2, gfc_expr **result)
@@ -1421,7 +1438,7 @@ reduce_binary_aa (arith (*eval) (gfc_exp
break;
}
- rc = eval (c-expr, d-expr, r);
+ rc = reduce_binary (eval, c-expr, d-expr, r);
if (rc != ARITH_OK)
break;
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords||patch
Last reconfirmed|2007-09-03 09:34:53 |2007-09-19 11:52:17
date||
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-09-03 07:39 --- I don't see the ICE on PPC Darwin8, revision 128037, but the following modifed code gives a wrong answer: program initbug integer,parameter :: n0 = 3, n = 5 real(kind=8),parameter :: x0(n0) = (/ 2.0d0, 2.0d0, 2.0d0 /) real(kind=8),parameter :: x(n) = (/ -x0, x0(n0-1:1:-1) /) + 1.0d0 print *, x end program initbug gives -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 1.000.00 xlf and g95 gives: -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 3.0 3.0 or -1. -1. -1. 3. 3. as I expect. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-03 09:34 --- I don't see the ICE on PPC Darwin8, revision 128037, but the following modifed code gives a wrong answer: For me (4.3.0 20070903, r128037, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) both examples cause a segmentation fault in mpfr_cmp2. Interestingly, I don't get any failure if I run the program through valgrind. -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu dot ||org OtherBugsDependingO||32834 nThis|| Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 GCC build triplet|i386-pc-linux-gnu | GCC host triplet|i386-pc-linux-gnu | GCC target triplet|i386-pc-linux-gnu | Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Known to fail||4.1.3 4.2.2 4.3.0 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-09-03 09:34:53 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-09-03 09:43 --- If I try to regtestify the code (uncomment the commented line): program initbug integer,parameter :: n0 = 3, n = 5 real(kind=8),parameter :: x0(n0) = (/ 2.0d0, 2.0d0, 2.0d0 /) real(kind=8),parameter :: x(n) = (/ -x0, x0(n0-1:1:-1) /) + 1.0d0 print *, x ! if (any(x /= (/ -1.0d0, -1.0d0, -1.0d0, 3.0d0, 3.0d0 /))) call abort() end program initbug I get: [karma] f90/bug% gfc pr33288.f90 pr33288.f90:4.37: real(kind=8),parameter :: x(n) = (/ -x0, x0(n0-1:1:-1) /) + 1.0d0 1 Error: Array operands are incommensurate at (1) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-03 10:12 --- The following does not ICE for me and produces the right result (note the extra +0.0): real,parameter :: x(n) = (/ -x0, x0(n0-1:1:-1) + 0.0 /) +1.0 analogously for (note extra (...)): real,parameter :: x(n) = (/ -x0, ( x0(n0-1:1:-1) ) /) +1.0 Seemingly, the array range x0(n0-1:1:-1) does not get properly simplified and thus -value.real points to the nirvana. -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-09-03 11:01 --- I confirm that program initbug integer,parameter :: n0 = 3, n = 5 real(kind=8),parameter :: x0(n0) = (/ 2.0d0, 2.0d0, 2.0d0 /) real(kind=8),parameter :: x(n) = (/ -x0, x0(n0-1:1:-1) + 0.0d0 /) + 1.0d0 print *, x if (any(x /= (/ -1.0d0, -1.0d0, -1.0d0, 3.0d0, 3.0d0 /))) call abort() end program initbug works as expected. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
[Bug fortran/33288] ICE (segfault) in mpfr_cmp2 when evaluating array initializers containing addition
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-03 11:31 --- (In reply to comment #4) Seemingly, the array range x0(n0-1:1:-1) does not get properly simplified and thus -value.real points to the nirvana. Nope. I get an ICE for the following testcase: real, parameter :: x0(1) = 0 real, parameter :: x(1) = (/ x0 /) + 1 end The problem is that we come into gfc_arith_plus() with one operand being an EXPR_ARRAY, so looking at its value.real is wrong (if you want to do something with it, it's value.constructor that should be looked at). I guess reduce_binary_ac() should really look deeper: in the loop for (c = head; c; c = c-next), we should see whether c-expr is an EXPR_CONSTANT before calling eval(), and look deeper into it if it's an EXPR_ARRAY. (Though it's the first time I look at this code and array constructors, I might be misunderstanding it all.) -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33288
