--- Comment #25 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-25 10:26 ---
Subject: Bug 27954
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 25 10:26:01 2007
New Revision: 128758
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128758
Log:
2006-10-27 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortr
--- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-04 20:10
---
*** Bug 30701 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #23 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-27 20:58
---
Fixed on 4.3 Only
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-27 20:55
---
Subject: Bug 27954
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Oct 27 20:54:54 2006
New Revision: 118086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118086
Log:
2006-10-27 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-27 20:47
---
Subject: Bug 27954
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Oct 27 20:47:28 2006
New Revision: 118084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118084
Log:
2006-10-27 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 16:25
---
To make you feel better. I have found the other spots. Those are fixed as
well and regression tested AOK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27954
--- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 14:35 ---
Thank goodne for that - I thought that I was going batty!
Cheers
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27954
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 14:33
---
Correction: The patch in #16 fixes the case in #11. However I have several
other variations on this that are taking a different error path.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27954
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 14:27
---
This does not fix it, but I think the idea is in the right direction. There
are multiple error return paths like this that are not cleaning up enough.
This explains why making variations on the test case gives
--- Comment #16 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 09:20 ---
The problem is specific to old-style initializers, as
program FOO
real :: x = 2.0 q
real z /2.0/ q
end program FOO
shows (comment out each declaration in turn!).
Grepping on the first error message leads us to d
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 04:50 ---
Jerry,
I got your message and will reply later - I have to run for the bus!
I have been aware that there is a problem with empty symbols for some little
while. Whilst on the way to the lab, I will contemplate how t
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 03:54
---
Another test case with similar error:
program friend
character*20 y, x 0
data y /'abcdef'/, x /'jbnhjk'/ o
print *, "basketcase"
end program friend
$ gfc pr27954.f90
In file pr27954.f90:2
character*2
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 03:26
---
*** Bug 18923 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 03:24
---
I believe this is a duplicate of PR18923. What I am finding is that under some
error conditions, we end up with empty symbols. When gfc resolve is executed
we are bumping into this arror because the sym->name i
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-11 01:40
---
I can coax a segfault out of this:
program FOO
character*20 Y /'Abcdef'/ 0
print *, Y
end program FOO
$ gfc pr27954.f90
In file pr27954.f90:2
character*20 Y /'Abcdef'/ 0
1
Erro
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-11 01:34
---
Another example showing this is not specific to DATA statements, but is related
to parsing the initilizer.
program FOO
character*20 Y /'Abcdef'/ garbage
end program FOO
$ gfc pr27954.f90
In file pr27954.f90:
--- Comment #9 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-16 02:23
---
Confirmed as the bug was reproduced by Steve.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-06-13 00:56 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on garbage in DATA statement
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 05:34:52PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:26:16PM -, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
> wrote:
> >
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-06-13 00:35 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on garbage in DATA statement
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:26:16PM -, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> I can reproduce the bug also on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
> Does freebs
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 23:26
---
I can reproduce the bug also on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Does freebsd vs. linux really matter that much here?
Or could GMP or MPFR be the culprit?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27954
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-06-12 23:04 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on garbage in DATA statement
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:32:15PM -, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 15
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 15:32
---
Maybe it's target dependent?
Are you using --enable-checking?
I have
% gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,java,ob
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 14:23 ---
I don't see the internal error.
laptop:kargl[205] cat > r.f90
subroutine FOO
character*20 X 0
data X /'A'/0
end subroutine FOO
laptop:kargl[206] gfc -c r.f90
In file r.f90:3
char
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 12:45
---
Well, the "Internal Error" at the end of the eror message doesn't look
like "the right thing" to me:
Internal Error at (1):
gfc_get_default_type(): Bad symbol
And this happens since GCC 4.0.0. I.e. GCC 4.0.x, 4
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-12 00:02 ---
Okay, your bug report says gcc 4.0.0 and the reported against
field says 4.2.0. Which is correct, because gfortran does
the right thing with gcc 4.2.0.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
25 matches
Mail list logo
