This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/29616] New: Run-time check using nullified pointers
- From: "tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 27 Oct 2006 15:09:56 -0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/29616] New: Run-time check using nullified pointers
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
I think there are essentially two problems possible with pointers:
(a) Uninitialized pointer (i.e. neither NULL nor associated)
(b) Using an unassociated pointer
I think checking (a) is not easily doable as one would need to pass this status
(has been initialized? yes/no) on to subroutines.
(NAG f95 does so, but one needs to compile all parts of the program with this
option as the variable status is passed on to the subroutines. This
-C=uninitialized options is still great to find uninitialized variables, esp.
those (e.g. integer) which can not be pre-autoinitialized by NaN.)
Thus this is a request for enhancement for the second type.
Example:
program pointtest
implicit none
real, pointer :: r
nullify(r)
call foo(r) ! Error one
r = 5.0 ! Error two
contains
subroutine foo(bar)
real, target, intent(in) :: bar
! The error occures already here and not in the next line!
print *, bar
end subroutine foo
end program pointtest
Both are caught by NAG f95 with -C=pointer and by ifort with -check pointer:
Reference to disassociated POINTER R
and
forrtl: severe (408): fort: (7): Attempt to use pointer R when it is not
associated with a target
However, the error analysis could be improved for both:
Ifort gives a trace, but even with "-g" it does not show where.
NAG at least coredumps and thus one can find out where it crashes:
gdb -> bt
...
#3 0x00002af4962e5e1a in __NAGf90_badptr1 () from /opt/nag/lib/libf98.so.1
#4 0x0000000000403338 in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fff14a00578) at pointest.f90:6
We should try to find something, which is easily debuggable (e.g. spitting out
the file and line number?). If we say that the user should use gdb himself [as
we used to with boundary check], then we should at least tell, were to set the
break point [unless we coredump, the one can use "bt"].
At least I didn't found it obvious to set a break point at "exit__" (or
something like that), which was also in a library not loaded when loading the
program in gdb. Well, fortunally -fbounds-check now prints file and line :-)
(The two pointer tests of Polyhedron's diagnotic check, by the way, only the
first type.)
--
Summary: Run-time check using nullified pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29616