> … . The testcase demonstrates that the segfault in F951 (caused by calling
> mpz_set with an invalid mpz_t) does not happen.
If I am not mistaken, the test compiles without the patch (with different
messages at least on x86_64-apple-darwin14
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr36192.f9
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:43:37PM +0100, FX wrote:
> > Because the code issues two errors, one for each dimension.
>
> Then shouldn???t it be ???string.*string??? to match
> two occurences of the string, with some stuff (incl. newline) in the middle?
>
I don't know dejagnu well enough to know i
> Because the code issues two errors, one for each dimension.
Then shouldn’t it be “string.*string” to match two occurences of the string,
with some stuff (incl. newline) in the middle?
FX
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:49:10AM +0100, FX wrote:
> > 2015-10-25 Steven G. Kargl
> >
> > PR fortran/36192
> > * array.c (gfc_ref_dimen_size): Check for BT_INTEGER before calling
> > mpz_set.
> >
> >
> > 2015-10-25 Steven G. Kargl
> >
> > PR fortran/36192
> > * gfortr
With the patch compiling the original test still gives
…
pr36192.f90:39:10:
x_n, v_n, & ! Configuration at t+dt with step dt
1
Error: The module or main program array 'x_n' at (1) must have constant shape
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11
Domini
> 2015-10-25 Steven G. Kargl
>
> PR fortran/36192
> * array.c (gfc_ref_dimen_size): Check for BT_INTEGER before calling
> mpz_set.
>
>
> 2015-10-25 Steven G. Kargl
>
> PR fortran/36192
> * gfortran.dg/pr36192.f90: New test.
OK. But I don’t understand why the
The attached patch fixes a segfault in f951 for some poorly
written invalid code. See the testcase for the code in
question. Built and tested on i386-*-freebsd. Ok to commit?
2015-10-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/36192
* array.c (gfc_ref_dimen_size): Check for BT_INTEGER bef
