Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> writes: > Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> writes: > >> Hi all, >> >> please note, that I don't know this bisecting very well, so this may very >> well >> be a wrong blame. During latest regression testing of the Fortran suite I got >> typebound_operator_7.f03 failing with: >> >> typebound_operator_7.f03:94:25: >> >> 94 | u = (u*2.0*4.0) + u*4.0 >> | 1 >> internal compiler error: tree check: expected function_decl, have >> indirect_ref >> in DECL_FUNCTION_CODE, at tree.h:4329 0x3642f3e internal_error(char >> const*, >> ...) /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/diagnostic-global-context.cc:517 >> 0x1c0a703 tree_check_failed(tree_node const*, char const*, int, char const*, >> ...) /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/tree.cc:9003 >> 0xeb9150 tree_check(tree_node const*, char const*, int, char const*, >> tree_code) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/tree.h:3921 >> 0xf5725b DECL_FUNCTION_CODE(tree_node const*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/tree.h:4329 >> 0xf383d6 update_builtin_function >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:4405 >> 0xf468b9 gfc_conv_procedure_call(gfc_se*, gfc_symbol*, gfc_actual_arglist*, >> gfc_expr*, vec<tree_node*, va_gc, vl_embed>*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:8236 0xf48b0f >> gfc_conv_function_expr >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:8815 0xf4ceda >> gfc_conv_expr(gfc_se*, gfc_expr*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:9982 0xf40777 >> gfc_conv_procedure_call(gfc_se*, gfc_symbol*, gfc_actual_arglist*, >> gfc_expr*, vec<tree_node*, va_gc, vl_embed>*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:6816 0xf48b0f >> gfc_conv_function_expr >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:8815 0xf4ceda >> gfc_conv_expr(gfc_se*, gfc_expr*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:9982 0xf40777 >> gfc_conv_procedure_call(gfc_se*, gfc_symbol*, gfc_actual_arglist*, >> gfc_expr*, vec<tree_node*, va_gc, vl_embed>*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc:6816 0xfb580a >> gfc_trans_call(gfc_code*, bool, tree_node*, tree_node*, bool) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.cc:425 0xed9363 >> trans_code /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans.cc:2434 0xed97d5 >> gfc_trans_code(gfc_code*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans.cc:2713 0xf26342 >> gfc_generate_function_code(gfc_namespace*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc:7958 0xed9819 >> gfc_generate_code(gfc_namespace*) >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/trans.cc:2730 0xe544ee >> translate_all_program_units >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/parse.cc:7156 0xe54e23 >> gfc_parse_file() /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/parse.cc:7473 >> 0xebf7ce gfc_be_parse_file >> /mnt/work_store/gcc/gcc.test/gcc/fortran/f95-lang.cc:241 >> >> Checking with git bisect this lead me to: >> >> d8ef4471cb9c9f86784b62424a215ea42173bfe1 being the last commit the test >> passed >> >> and >> >> 03623fa91ff36ecb9faa3b55f7842a39b759594e libstdc++: Use std::move for >> iterator >> in ranges::fill [PR117094] >> >> failing the test to pass. Can anyone confirm? >> >> I might be doing something wrong here, so please be patient and explain, >> what I >> miss. > > You can confirm this by reverting the commit to see if it starts to pass > again. > > Also, if manually bisecting, it can be worth doing each commit twice if > unfamiliar with it (or use `git bisect run` instead). > > Now, according to gcc-regression > (https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-regression/20241013105730.f2e0614a0...@shgcc06.sh.intel.com/T/#u), > it started between r15-4295 and r15-4298, although it didn't bisect (it > does sometimes but this isn't one of those emails): > > $ git shortlog $(contrib/git-undescr.sh r15-4295)~1..$(contrib/git-undescr.sh > r15-4298) > GCC Administrator (1): > Daily bump. > > Jivan Hakobyan (1): > [RISC-V] Avoid unnecessary extensions when value is already extended > > Thomas Koenig (1): > Unsigned constants for ISO_FORTRAN_ENV and ISO_C_BINDING. > > Tobias Burnus (1): > Fortran: Use OpenACC's acc_on_device builtin, fix OpenMP' > __builtin_is_initial_device > > Those 2 Fortran candidates seem more likely, but not that I know > anything about Fortran.
Indeed: https://gcc.gnu.org/PR117136. > >> >> Regards, >> Andre > > thanks, > sam
