This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/65585] New: Implicit allocation of unallocated array with an implicit summation
- From: "dirteat at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:52:48 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/65585] New: Implicit allocation of unallocated array with an implicit summation
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
Bug ID: 65585
Summary: Implicit allocation of unallocated array with an
implicit summation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dirteat at gmail dot com
Created attachment 35150
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35150&action=edit
10 lines code reproducing the bug
Hi there,
I did not find any bug report on this, but the small attached code compiled
with gcc-gfortran 4.9.2 implicitely allocate an non-allocated array; or
segfault, depending on how the implicit assignement is written.
Compiled with:
gfortran -c noalloc.f90; gfortran noalloc.o -o bug
With the assignemnt written as:
iamwild = iamfine
I get the following output:
Are you fine? 1.00000000 2.00000000 3.00000000 4.00000000
5.00000000 6.00000000 7.00000000 8.00000000
9.00000000 10.0000000
With the assignment written as:
iamwild(:) = iamfine(:)
I get the expected behavior:
./bug
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
Backtrace for this error:
#0 0x7F8CF04BA597
#1 0x7F8CF04BABAE
#2 0x7F8CEF9C66AF
#3 0x400BC3 in MAIN__ at noalloc.f90:?
Segmentation fault
PS: took me the day to understand why my code was not working with another
compiler... :-/