https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692
Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #5)
> Just an observation: adding to subroutine shape_cray either
>
> save :: ptrzz
>
> or
>
> volatile :: ptrzz
>
> creates sufficient confusion in the middle-end that the code seems to work.
>
> (The code sample also works with Crayftn, whatever that means...)
Hi Harald,
Following your remarks, I tried setting the pointer decl tree static. That
resulted in the test succeeding for -O but it crashed at higher levels of
optimization.
Treating the pointer as if it were volatile; ie.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
index 0b1474d7559..faa0e703321 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
@@ -747,7 +747,8 @@ gfc_finish_var_decl (tree decl, gfc_symbol * sym)
TREE_STATIC (decl) = 1;
/* Treat asynchronous variables the same as volatile, for now. */
- if (sym->attr.volatile_ || sym->attr.asynchronous)
+ if (sym->attr.volatile_ || sym->attr.asynchronous
+ || (sym->attr.cray_pointer && !sym->attr.in_common))
{
TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (decl) = 1;
TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (decl) = 1;
does the job at all levels of optimization. However, it does cause regressions
in analyzer/malloc.f90 and analyzer/malloc_example.f90. The latter is
interesting because the analyzer detects leaks, whereas valgrind says that the
runtime is OK.
Do we want to fix this, given Jakub and Tobias's remarks?
Paul
