This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in resolve_equivalence
- From: Mikael Morin <mikael dot morin at sfr dot fr>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:08:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] ICE in resolve_equivalence
- References: <4C4C5993.email@example.com> <4C4C5E76.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Le 25.07.2010 17:55, Tobias Burnus a Ãcrit :
Committed (without testcase) as revision 162516.
Mikael Morin wrote:
There is no testcase as the ones in the pr were not giving any ICE on
my platform. I can add them if someone prefers. I have checked that
the valgrind errors are gone for both of them anyway.
Regression tested on x86_64-unknown-freebsd8.0. OK for trunk/4.5/4.4 ?
I need release manager approval for accelerated commit on 4.5 (if not
OK. (In general, I prefer test cases, however, for this PR, I do not
feel strong about it.)
The question is whether such a memory problem (access to freed memory)
can be caught by the testsuite (maybe with valgrind-checking enabled?).
If so, then it makes sense to add a testcase, even if a normal build
would not notice a regression there.