This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/52418] (unnecessary) automatic reallocation of lhs causes segfault
- From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:25:26 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/52418] (unnecessary) automatic reallocation of lhs causes segfault
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-52418-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52418
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-28 16:25:26 UTC ---
Aha, that's the bug report to the spurious attachment at PR 48058 comment 4.
Thanks for the bug report and sorry for the breakage!
As written there, that's a known bug affecting both GCC 4.6 and GCC 4.7. It has
been reported on 2012-01-26 and fixed on 2012-01-31 for GCC 4.7 and on
2012-02-03 for GCC 4.7 [See PR 52151 for details.]
A follow up fix (for RESHAPE when a reallocation is required) has been
committed on 2012-02-08 for both GCC's 4.6 branch and the 4.7 trunk, cf. PR
52151.
(For some reasons, no one has reported the bug for one year, but now there were
two reports within a week and this one a month after the first report.)
As written in PR 52117, you have the following options:
> Unless you provide me with a time machine [...]
> The only solutions, I see, which do not require code changes are:
>
> - Use any GCC version before GCC 4.6.0; for instance GCC 4.5.x
> - Use GCC 4.6 older than 2010-11-28
> - Use a GCC (any version) newer than 2012-02-03
> - Use -fno-realloc-lhs (caveat: Flag not supported before GCC 4.6)
> - Use -std=f95 (caveat: Requires that the code compiles without error with
> -std=f95)
> For completeness, also the following code changes are possible; except for
> the first one, they are not recommended:
>
> - Use an array spec for allocatable LHS, e.g. "B(:,:,:) = "
[And some more nonseriously meant variants]
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 52151 ***