[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed on master for gcc-11, and backported to 10-branch. Closing. Thanks for the report!
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67e7f56b6795023dbf59d27e200668b04ce63c3a commit r10-9084-g67e7f56b6795023dbf59d27e200668b04ce63c3a Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Wed Nov 25 20:20:44 2020 +0100 PR fortran/85796 - Floating point exception with implied do Catch invalid step=0 in implied do loop within data statements. gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/85796 * resolve.c (traverse_data_list): Fix copy errors; catch step=0 in implied do loop. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/85796 * gfortran.dg/pr85796.f90: New test. (cherry picked from commit 94172dc7091a2c6b2d2f99857de77c607fac3935)
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94172dc7091a2c6b2d2f99857de77c607fac3935 commit r11-5389-g94172dc7091a2c6b2d2f99857de77c607fac3935 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Wed Nov 25 20:20:44 2020 +0100 PR fortran/85796 - Floating point exception with implied do Catch invalid step=0 in implied do loop within data statements. gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/85796 * resolve.c (traverse_data_list): Fix copy errors; catch step=0 in implied do loop. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR fortran/85796 * gfortran.dg/pr85796.f90: New test.
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-November/055325.html Thus taking.
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Jerry, are you still following this one?
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4) > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 08:13:31PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote: > > > > --- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- > > This looks OK Steve. Assuming your regression tested, shall I commit this > > for > > you? > > > > My regression test shows 22 regression, but none can be > associated with this patch. There are lto errors about > linking, which likely means gfortran is finding FreeBSD > ld (rtld) instead of binutils. > > I'm also getting an odd failure with 'gmake -j7 chec-fortran' > where a submake is dying with 'argument to -j must be positive'. > Odd? Ugh. configure is broken. I asked for --enable-languages=c,fortran. Because, I left out c++, configure helpfully added in c++,lto. Not good. Had to add --disable-lto. Regression tests fine.
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 08:13:31PM +, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrote: > > --- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- > This looks OK Steve. Assuming your regression tested, shall I commit this for > you? > My regression test shows 22 regression, but none can be associated with this patch. There are lto errors about linking, which likely means gfortran is finding FreeBSD ld (rtld) instead of binutils. I'm also getting an odd failure with 'gmake -j7 chec-fortran' where a submake is dying with 'argument to -j must be positive'. Odd?
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 jvdelisle at charter dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at charter dot net --- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- This looks OK Steve. Assuming your regression tested, shall I commit this for you?
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 280157)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c (working copy)
@@ -16174,27 +16174,34 @@ traverse_data_list (gfc_data_variable *var, locus
*whe
end = gfc_copy_expr (var->iter.end);
step = gfc_copy_expr (var->iter.step);
- if (!gfc_simplify_expr (start, 1)
- || start->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
+ if (!gfc_simplify_expr (start, 1) || start->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
{
gfc_error ("start of implied-do loop at %L could not be "
"simplified to a constant value", >where);
retval = false;
goto cleanup;
}
- if (!gfc_simplify_expr (end, 1)
- || end->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
+
+ if (!gfc_simplify_expr (end, 1) || end->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
{
gfc_error ("end of implied-do loop at %L could not be "
"simplified to a constant value", >where);
retval = false;
goto cleanup;
}
- if (!gfc_simplify_expr (step, 1)
- || step->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
+
+ if (!gfc_simplify_expr (step, 1) || step->expr_type != EXPR_CONSTANT)
{
gfc_error ("step of implied-do loop at %L could not be "
-"simplified to a constant value", >where);
+"simplified to a constant value", >where);
+ retval = false;
+ goto cleanup;
+}
+
+ if (mpz_cmp_si (step->value.integer, 0) == 0)
+{
+ gfc_error ("step of implied-do loop at %L shall not be zero",
+>where);
retval = false;
goto cleanup;
}
[Bug fortran/85796] ICE: Floating point exception
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85796 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2018-05-16 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Confirmed from 4.3.1.
