This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/53379] [4.7/4.8 Regression] No backtrace generated for array bounds violation
- From: "jb at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:32:54 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/53379] [4.7/4.8 Regression] No backtrace generated for array bounds violation
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-53379-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-18 14:32:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > AFAICS, this is an intentional change in behavior. When I proposed making
> > backtracing enabled by default, there was some objections to the initial patch
> > on the grounds that the backtracing was too aggressive.
>
> I wonder whether one should add a more aggressive version of backtrace (which
> could be internally pass backtrace == 2), which covers this case. Ditto for
> some environment flag.
Well yes, but IMHO the best option would be to do the right thing by default,
making an option unnecessary. If anything, a bewildering array of options is an
usability issue.
For instance...
> I have to admit that the description of
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/GFORTRAN_005fERROR_005fBACKTRACE.html is
> misleading. And the meaning and relation of it to
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/GFORTRAN_005fSHOW_005fLOCUS.html is also
> unclear.
one wonders what is the purpose of GFORTRAN_SHOW_LOCUS. What value do we
provide by providing a means to NOT print out the filename/line information? I
think the answer is "none" and thus we should get rid of it, simplifying the
code and manual a tidy bit.