------- Comment #17 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2010-01-29 23:32 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Created an attachment (id=19754)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19754&action=view) [edit]
> patch
>
> Here is an updated patch which fixes the test case in the last comment and the
> original problem.
>
I tried this one and compared it to the semi-solution in comment #9.
Both "work for me", but the patch from comment #16 appears to produce
a significant performance regression for my code of the order of 10-15%
as compared to the one from #9.
There is another problem left with the patch. I am not sure whether the
code is legal, but it gives an ICE for me:
implicit none
type t
integer :: X = -999.0 ! Real initializer!
end type t
class(t), allocatable :: x
class(t), allocatable :: y(:)
allocate (t::x)
allocate (t::y(1)) ! ICE
end
gfcbug103a.f90: In function MAIN__:
gfcbug103a.f90:8:0: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
(gdb) run gfcbug103a.f90
Starting program: /opt/gfortran/4.5/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.5.0/f951
gfcbug103a.f90
MAIN__
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0816ee06 in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref (se=0xbfffe468, ar=0x8bf3394)
at ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2487
2487 n = se->loop->order[0];
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0816ee06 in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref (se=0xbfffe468, ar=0x8bf3394)
at ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2487
#1 0x0816f5c9 in gfc_conv_array_ref (se=0xbfffe468, ar=0x8bf3394,
sym=0x8bf0c90,
where=0x8bf3350) at ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2537
#2 0x00000029 in ?? ()
Backtrace stopped: previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42888
