--- Comment #38 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 42274
Author: pault
Date: Thu Apr 29 19:10:48 2010
New Revision: 158910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158910
Log:
2010-04-29 Janus Weil
PR fortran/43896
* sym
--- Comment #37 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 10:57 ---
I think that we can mark this as closed.
Thanks, first to Salvatore for the report and second to Janus for the fix.
Salvatore, to repeat Janus's request, could you please check that there are no
further regressions,
--- Comment #36 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 09:08 ---
Subject: Bug 42274
Author: janus
Date: Mon Apr 26 09:07:26 2010
New Revision: 158721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158721
Log:
2010-04-26 Janus Weil
PR fortran/42274
* sym
--- Comment #35 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-26 08:23 ---
> The testsuite completed cleanly, without any failures. Paul, if you agree that
> this patch is ok, I can commit it tomorrow.
Confirmed without any problem on my own test.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Comment #34 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 22:26 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Will do a full testsuite run now.
The testsuite completed cleanly, without any failures. Paul, if you agree that
this patch is ok, I can commit it tomorrow.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #33 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 21:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=20488)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20488&action=view)
patch v5
The attached version of the patch clears the failures of
dynamic_dispatch_{1-3}.f03. It is free of regr
--- Comment #32 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2010-04-25 20:20 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
>
> Salvatore: As you heard, Paul's patch is screwed up. Maybe you could rather
> try
> the patch in comment #23, which is clean (except for a small regression) and
> fixes your original p
--- Comment #31 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 20:17 ---
Ok, back to fixing the remaining regression, namely comment #24. Compiling this
with and without the patch in comment #23 shows the following difference:
--- c24.dump.unpatched 2010-04-25 22:03:44.418204091 +0200
++
--- Comment #30 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 19:50 ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> (In reply to comment #27)
> > Created an attachment (id=20486)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20486&action=view) [edit]
> >
> Tried this patch: compilation goes past t
--- Comment #29 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2010-04-25 19:16 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Created an attachment (id=20486)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20486&action=view) [edit]
>
Tried this patch: compilation goes past the previous point, so we made
pro
--- Comment #28 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-04-25 18:59 ---
Subject: Re: [fortran-dev Regression] ICE: segmentation
fault
Janus,
Forget all of our last exchanges - I screwed up somehow with the
patch. This has nothing to do with your problem
Sorr
--- Comment #26 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-04-25 18:28 ---
Subject: Re: [fortran-dev Regression] ICE: segmentation
fault
Dear Janus,
I thought that I would lend a helping hand, so I applied your latest
patch to my fortran-dev. Since I had left so
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 18:23 ---
I just did a full testsuite run, verifying that "dynamic_dispatch_{1-3}.f03"
are indeed the only failures with the patch in comment #23.
This means that, if we can fix the failure in comment #24, the branch will most
--- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 17:16 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> My suspicion, which is strengthened by the remaining regressions for version 3
> of your fix, is that the generic components of the vtab should not be marked
> as
> ppc. I have been tempt
--- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 17:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=20485)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20485&action=view)
patch v4
The attached update of the patch removes the ICEs in
typebound_operator_{3,4}.f03.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 16:43 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_3.f03:84:0:
> internal
> compiler error: Segmentation fault
Yes, I can confirm that: typebound_operator_{3,4}.f03 both fail with
--- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-25 16:38 ---
> Here is an updated patch, which fixes (among others) comment #8 example 2 and
> comment #18. The remaining regressions are:
>
> * dynamic_dispatch_{1-3}.f03
I also have
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/t
--- Comment #20 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 16:27 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Janus,
When I got up this morning, I made a start on documenting the fortran-dev
version of gfc_find_derived_vtab with a view to understand the code flow and to
understand why the original p
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 14:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=20484)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20484&action=view)
patch v3
Here is an updated patch, which fixes (among others) comment #8 example 2 and
comment #18. The remainin
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 14:42 ---
Here is a maximally reduced version of comment #8 example 2, which still fails
with the patch in comment #17:
module m
type :: t1
contains
procedure :: make_integer
generic :: extract => make_integer
en
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-25 14:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=20482)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20482&action=view)
patch v2
The attached patch extends the one in comment #7, fixing all regressions
related to non-generic TBPs (h
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-22 20:58 ---
For completeness, here is a reduced/modified version of the original test case
in comment #1:
module mod_A
type :: t1
contains
procedure,nopass :: fun
end type
contains
logical function fun()
end func
--- Comment #15 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-03-02 09:47 ---
I just opened pr43227 for a similar regression. For the record the backtrace
for the test in comment#1 with fortran-dev revision 157148 is
(gdb) run pr42274.f90
The program being debugged has been started already.
S
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-10 21:21 ---
Comparing the dump of the test case in comment #9 with and without the patch in
comment #11 shows that with the patch the following is missing:
@@ -25,10 +25,6 @@ MAIN__ ()
integer(kind=4) itmp;
extern struct v
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 13:32 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> However, I fail to see why. Paul, do you have an idea?
>
I have loaded fortran-dev and this PR onto my laptop - I'm on the road again
this week.
I'll see if I have anything to offer. I
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-05 16:41 ---
Removing the line outlined in comment#11, slightly improve the situation:
class_9.f03 and dynamic_dispatch_5.f03, and the test in comment #9 now pass and
I get for pr41829.f90:
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc pr41829.f90
[m
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 15:14 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> With the patch in comment #7 the tests in pr41829 and the following ones
> segfault at runtime.
Since these run fine with a clean fortran-dev, this is a regression of my
patch, more exactly
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-05 13:31 ---
With the patch in comment #7 the tests gfortran.dg/class_9.f03 and
gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_[1-6].f03 also give a segfault at runtime.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42274
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 11:20 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> With the patch in comment #7 the tests in pr41829 and the following ones
> segfault at runtime.
Confirmed. This may be an initialization issue of the vtypes. Reduced test
case:
module m
t
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-04 21:37 ---
With the patch in comment #7 the tests in pr41829 and the following ones
segfault at runtime.
!
module m
type :: t1
integer :: i = 42
contains
procedure, pass :: prod => i
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-04 19:43 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the problem is that c->tb->ppc is not set correctly for the PPCs
> inside
> vtype.
The following patches fixes it:
Index: gcc/fortran/symbol.c
=
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-04 17:06 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> #3 0x004fa344 in mio_component (c=0x154b880) at
> /home/tob/projects/fortran-dev/gcc/fortran/module.c:2362
The component here is 'is_null', and the parent symbol is
'vtype$psb_d_bas
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-04 15:57 ---
> (In reply to comment #3)
> Richard is probably right, it should be clearly marked against the branch,
I have now set "Reported against" to 'fortran-dev', marked it in the Subject
line and in 'known to work/fail'
B
33 matches
Mail list logo
