| Message ID | 20151203062630.GA62157@troutmask.apl.washington.edu |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:26:30PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:02:33PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > Paul, > > > > I'm stumped. Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-( > > > > Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08 -O (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08 -O (test for excess errors) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O0 (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O0 (test for excess errors) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O1 (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O1 (test for excess errors) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O2 (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O2 (test for excess errors) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (test for excess errors) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -g (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -g (test for excess errors) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -Os (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -Os (test for excess errors) > > Well, if I change the order of the conditionals decl.c:4831, I > can get rid of the above FAILs. > > Index: decl.c > =================================================================== > --- decl.c (revision 231219) > +++ decl.c (working copy) > @@ -4826,7 +4826,7 @@ ok: > > /* Abbreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any > formal arguments! */ > - if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head) > + if (formal && !head && sym && !sym->abr_modproc_decl) > arg_count_mismatch = true; > > for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next) > > -- > steve > > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08 -O (internal compiler error) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08 -O (test for errors, line 29) > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08 -O (test for excess errors) These ICEs persist at line 4831. In looking at the code, I'm now somewhat unsure what it should be doing. In particular, there are 2 gfc_error_now() calls in the below: for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next) { if ((p->next != NULL && q->next == NULL) || (p->next == NULL && q->next != NULL)) arg_count_mismatch = true; else if ((p->sym == NULL && q->sym == NULL) || strcmp (p->sym->name, q->sym->name) == 0) continue; else gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in MODULE PROCEDURE formal " "argument names (%s/%s) at %C", p->sym->name, q->sym->name); } if (arg_count_mismatch) gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in number of MODULE PROCEDURE " "formal arguments at %C"); } return MATCH_YES; cleanup: gfc_free_formal_arglist (head); return m; But, we return MATCH_YES? I would expect setting m = MATCH_ERROR and jumping to cleanup. That's ugly.
Dear Steve, I'll take a look at this this afternoon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers Paul On 3 December 2015 at 07:43, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:26:30PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:02:33PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: >> > Paul, >> > >> > I'm stumped. Something is broken on i386-*-freebsd. :-( >> > >> > Running /mnt/kargl/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08 -O (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_10.f08 -O (test for excess errors) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O0 (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O0 (test for excess errors) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O1 (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O1 (test for excess errors) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O2 (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O2 (test for excess errors) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions (test for excess errors) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -g (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -O3 -g (test for excess errors) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -Os (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_11.f08 -Os (test for excess errors) >> >> Well, if I change the order of the conditionals decl.c:4831, I >> can get rid of the above FAILs. >> >> Index: decl.c >> =================================================================== >> --- decl.c (revision 231219) >> +++ decl.c (working copy) >> @@ -4826,7 +4826,7 @@ ok: >> >> /* Abbreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any >> formal arguments! */ >> - if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head) >> + if (formal && !head && sym && !sym->abr_modproc_decl) >> arg_count_mismatch = true; >> >> for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next) >> >> -- >> steve >> >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08 -O (internal compiler error) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08 -O (test for errors, line 29) >> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/submodule_13.f08 -O (test for excess errors) > > These ICEs persist at line 4831. In looking at the code, I'm > now somewhat unsure what it should be doing. In particular, > there are 2 gfc_error_now() calls in the below: > > > for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next) > { > if ((p->next != NULL && q->next == NULL) > || (p->next == NULL && q->next != NULL)) > arg_count_mismatch = true; > else if ((p->sym == NULL && q->sym == NULL) > || strcmp (p->sym->name, q->sym->name) == 0) > continue; > else > gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in MODULE PROCEDURE formal " > "argument names (%s/%s) at %C", > p->sym->name, q->sym->name); > } > > if (arg_count_mismatch) > gfc_error_now ("Mismatch in number of MODULE PROCEDURE " > "formal arguments at %C"); > } > > return MATCH_YES; > > cleanup: > gfc_free_formal_arglist (head); > return m; > > But, we return MATCH_YES? I would expect setting m = MATCH_ERROR > and jumping to cleanup. That's ugly. > > -- > Steve
Committed revision as 231319. Thanks for testing the patch. Paul On 5 December 2015 at 17:41, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:20:54PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: >> >> The cause of the segfault, I believe, was an error: 'sym' being used >> instead of 'progname': Could you please try the attached patch when >> you have a moment. > > Patch fixes the issue of i386-*-freebsd. Thanks for the > prompt fix. OK to commit (with ChangeLog, of course). > > -- > Steve
Index: decl.c =================================================================== --- decl.c (revision 231219) +++ decl.c (working copy) @@ -4826,7 +4826,7 @@ ok: /* Abbreviated module procedure declaration is not meant to have any formal arguments! */ - if (!sym->abr_modproc_decl && formal && !head) + if (formal && !head && sym && !sym->abr_modproc_decl) arg_count_mismatch = true; for (p = formal, q = head; p && q; p = p->next, q = q->next)