[Bug fortran/33375] ICE (segfault) gfortran.dg/common_6.f90

["hjl at lucon dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #9 from hjl at lucon dot org  2008-01-07 22:57 -------
We are processing common block symbols which we have rejected/freed before.
This patch works for me:

Index: symbol.c
===================================================================
--- symbol.c    (revision 131352)
+++ symbol.c    (working copy)
@@ -2726,14 +2726,14 @@ gfc_commit_symbol (gfc_symbol *sym)
 /* Recursive function that deletes an entire tree and all the common
    head structures it points to.  */

-static void
-free_common_tree (gfc_symtree * common_tree)
+void
+gfc_free_common_tree (gfc_symtree * common_tree)
 {
   if (common_tree == NULL)
     return;

-  free_common_tree (common_tree->left);
-  free_common_tree (common_tree->right);
+  gfc_free_common_tree (common_tree->left);
+  gfc_free_common_tree (common_tree->right);

   gfc_free (common_tree);
 }  
@@ -2863,7 +2863,7 @@ gfc_free_namespace (gfc_namespace *ns)

   free_sym_tree (ns->sym_root);
   free_uop_tree (ns->uop_root);
-  free_common_tree (ns->common_root);
+  gfc_free_common_tree (ns->common_root);

   for (cl = ns->cl_list; cl; cl = cl2)
     {
Index: gfortran.h
===================================================================
--- gfortran.h  (revision 131352)
+++ gfortran.h  (working copy)
@@ -2137,6 +2137,7 @@ int gfc_symbols_could_alias (gfc_symbol 
 void gfc_undo_symbols (void);
 void gfc_commit_symbols (void);
 void gfc_commit_symbol (gfc_symbol *);
+void gfc_free_common_tree (gfc_symtree *);
 void gfc_free_namespace (gfc_namespace *);

 void gfc_symbol_init_2 (void);
Index: match.c
===================================================================
--- match.c     (revision 131352)
+++ match.c     (working copy)
@@ -2956,6 +2956,8 @@ done:
   return MATCH_YES;

 syntax:
+  gfc_free_common_tree (gfc_current_ns->common_root);
+  gfc_current_ns->common_root = NULL;
   gfc_syntax_error (ST_COMMON);

 cleanup:

I don't know if it is 100% correct.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33375