[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |janus at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |7.0 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #10) > Please do, I lack some time for gfortran these days. I have committed the fix as r242020. Closing.
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 --- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Wed Nov 9 20:33:24 2016 New Revision: 242020 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242020&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-11-09 Mikael Morin Janus Weil PR fortran/46459 * interface.c (compare_actual_formal): Add safety checks to avoid ICE. 2016-11-09 Janus Weil PR fortran/46459 * gfortran.dg/volatile14.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/volatile14.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to janus from comment #8) > As mentioned by Harald, the patch in comment 1 works well and is close to > obvious. > > Mikael, are you going to commit this, or do you want me to do it? Please do, I lack some time for gfortran these days.
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #8) > As mentioned by Harald, the patch in comment 1 works well and is close to > obvious. I verified that it regtests cleanly. Adapted to current trunk it looks like this: Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c === --- gcc/fortran/interface.c (Revision 241993) +++ gcc/fortran/interface.c (Arbeitskopie) @@ -3190,6 +3190,7 @@ compare_actual_formal (gfc_actual_arglist **ap, gf shape array, if the dummy argument has the VOLATILE attribute. */ if (f->sym->attr.volatile_ + && a->expr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->as && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE && !(f->sym->as && f->sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE)) @@ -3219,6 +3220,7 @@ compare_actual_formal (gfc_actual_arglist **ap, gf dummy argument has the VOLATILE attribute. */ if (f->sym->attr.volatile_ + && a->expr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.pointer && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->as && !(f->sym->as
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- As mentioned by Harald, the patch in comment 1 works well and is close to obvious. Mikael, are you going to commit this, or do you want me to do it?
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf ---
The patch of comment #1 (adjusted to current trunk) regtests cleanly
for me.
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> The initial test doesn't lead to a segfault any more.
>
> It is now rejected with:
> comment_0.f90:7.8:
>
> call sub(1)
> 1
> Error: Explicit interface required for 'sub' at (1): volatile argument
I think this is correct, see below (*).
>
> However, the following variant is also rejected with the same error:
>
> call sub(1)
> contains
> subroutine sub(j)
>integer, volatile :: j
> end subroutine sub
> end
I do not get any error for this case, which is correct.
(*) The requirement for an explicit interface is described in F2008,
section 12.4.2.2 (2a), and is already properly handled by
gfc_explicit_interface_required().
I threw this testcase at the Cray compiler:
% cat pr46459.f90
call sub (1)
contains
subroutine sub (j)
integer, volatile :: j
end subroutine sub
end
subroutine sub1 ()
call sub2 (1) ! { dg-error "Explicit interface required" }
end subroutine sub1
subroutine sub2 (j)
integer, volatile :: j
end subroutine sub2
subroutine sub3 ()
interface
subroutine sub2 (j)
integer, volatile :: j
end subroutine sub2
end interface
call sub2 (1)
end subroutine sub3
% ftn pr46459.f90
subroutine sub2 (j)
^
ftn-954 crayftn: ERROR SUB2, File = pr46459.f90, Line = 11, Column = 12
Procedure "SUB2", referenced at line 9 (pr46459.f90) must have an explicit
interface because one or more arguments have the VOLATILE attribute.
This would agree with the patched trunk:
pr46459.f90:9:11:
call sub2 (1) ! { dg-error "Explicit interface required" }
1
Error: Explicit interface required for 'sub2' at (1): volatile argument
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5) > The initial test doesn't lead to a segfault any more. > > It is now rejected with: > comment_0.f90:7.8: > > call sub(1) > 1 > Error: Explicit interface required for 'sub' at (1): volatile argument > > > However, the following variant is also rejected with the same error: > > call sub(1) > contains > subroutine sub(j) >integer, volatile :: j > end subroutine sub > end With current trunk I get for this testcase: f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 0x884c5d0 crash_signal ../../trunk/gcc/toplev.c:335 0x8247bb7 compare_actual_formal ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2972 0x8248f02 gfc_procedure_use(gfc_symbol*, gfc_actual_arglist**, locus*) ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c:3441 0x82a0753 resolve_specific_s0 ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3282 0x82a0753 resolve_specific_s ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3302 0x82a0753 resolve_call ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3456 0x82a8b14 gfc_resolve_code(gfc_code*, gfc_namespace*) ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:10613 0x82ab342 resolve_codes ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:15529 0x829a1aa gfc_resolve ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:15563 0x829a1aa gfc_resolve ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c:15543 0x828ec38 resolve_all_program_units ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/parse.c:5551 0x828ec38 gfc_parse_file() ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/parse.c:5803 0x82d2a55 gfc_be_parse_file ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:201
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 --- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin --- The initial test doesn't lead to a segfault any more. It is now rejected with: comment_0.f90:7.8: call sub(1) 1 Error: Explicit interface required for 'sub' at (1): volatile argument However, the following variant is also rejected with the same error: call sub(1) contains subroutine sub(j) integer, volatile :: j end subroutine sub end
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin 2011-03-04 23:37:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > I am not sure to understand comment #2. You're right, assumed shapes are only for procedure arguments. For derived types components the syntax is the same, but the word is deferred shape. Then the conditions are fine and comment #2 is irrelevant.
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2011.03.01 15:53:23 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-01 15:53:23 UTC --- The patch in comment #1 fixes the ICE, but I am not sure to understand comment #2.
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin 2011-02-18 21:16:03 UTC --- By the way the conditions should not test against a->expr->symtree->n.sym->as->type as it does not support derived type components.
[Bug fortran/46459] ICE (segfault): Invalid read in compare_actual_formal [error recovery]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46459 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin 2011-02-18 21:13:11 UTC --- low hanging fruit: diff --git a/interface.c b/interface.c index 1e5df61..32c8b6e 100644 --- a/interface.c +++ b/interface.c @@ -2292,6 +2292,7 @@ compare_actual_formal (gfc_actual_arglist **ap, gfc_formal shape array, if the dummy argument has the VOLATILE attribute. */ if (f->sym->attr.volatile_ + && a->expr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->as && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE && !(f->sym->as && f->sym->as->type == AS_ASSUMED_SHAPE)) @@ -2321,6 +2322,7 @@ compare_actual_formal (gfc_actual_arglist **ap, gfc_formal dummy argument has the VOLATILE attribute. */ if (f->sym->attr.volatile_ + && a->expr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.pointer && a->expr->symtree->n.sym->as && !(f->sym->as
