http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #23 from Jacob Abel ---
If it helps at all, the following produces the same problem under gcc:
#include
#include
int main(void)
{
__float128 *ptr = NULL;
int i;
if (ptr = malloc(100 * sizeof(__float128)))
for (i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #21 from Jouko Orava ---
This bug is a duplicate of #55916.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #20 from Jouko Orava ---
Apologies, Jacob; my advice was faulty.
Could you please retest using the following?
Compile the binary using
gfortran -march=native -ggdb newtest.f90 -o newtest
then start gdb,
gdb newtest
and run unt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #19 from Jacob Abel ---
jake@Jake-E1505:~/Desktop$ gfortran -static -march=native
-Wl,-uquadmath_snprintf newtest.f90 -o newtest
jake@Jake-E1505:~/Desktop$ gdb newtest
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.5.91.20130417-cvs-ubuntu
Copyright (C) 2013 Free So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #18 from Jouko Orava ---
Addendum: the unaligned access causing the segfault seems to occur
because __libc_malloc returns an address aligned to 8 bytes, but
it is used as if it was aligned to 16 bytes. The disassembly is
80493a0: e8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #17 from Jouko Orava ---
I asked and received the details from Jacob Abel off-list, to find out if
this bug #60088 is related to bug #50201. They do not seem to be.
The instruction causing the segfault in this bug #60088 is
66 0f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #16 from Jacob Abel ---
Still segfaults, at least on MinGW:
C:\Users\Jake\Downloads>gfortran -march=native -Wl,-uquadmath_snprintf
newtest.f
90
C:\Users\Jake\Downloads>a
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
Jouko Orava changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jouko.orava at iki dot fi
--- Comment #15 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jacob Abel from comment #8)
> Seriously? Look, you falsely assumed it was mingw only.
Yes, with the information I had at the time, I thought the
problem was mingw specific.
> No wonde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #13 from Jacob Abel ---
The following file:
SUBROUTINE test(N)
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: N
REAL(KIND=16) :: array(N)
array = 0
END SUBROUTINE test
PROGRAM main
IMPLICIT NONE
CALL test(10)
END PROGRAM main
Creates the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #12 from Jacob Abel ---
Created attachment 32074
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32074&action=edit
NEW smaller simpler file to create the segfault
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #11 from Jacob Abel ---
The culprit that -march=native activates on my Core i7 laptop is -mavx.
Compiling with -mavx causes the segfault, without is fine. Unfortunately, that
flag was not set on my other laptop, so might be multiple is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This could be a duplicate of pr50201.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #8 from Jacob Abel ---
Seriously? Look, you falsely assumed it was mingw only. Jerry reproduced the
problem on linux as well. Excuse me for not knowing to post the backtrace. I
come here to post a legitimate bug and all you've done is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jacob Abel from comment #6)
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> > What output file? gcc_flags.txt does not show a segfault
> > or a debugger backtrace.
>
> It shows that I wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #6 from Jacob Abel ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5)
> What output file? gcc_flags.txt does not show a segfault
> or a debugger backtrace.
It shows that I was not using MinGW, as you assumed. Here's the gdb output:
jake@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:25:27AM +, thatcadguy at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> If you bothered to look at the gcc output file, you'd see that I tested it on
> Linux as well. This is a GCC and MinGW problem. T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
20 matches
Mail list logo
