https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #40 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #38)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #37)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36)
> > > Created attachment 61968 [details]
> > > Corrected third fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #39 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #38)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #37)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36)
> > > Created attachment 61968 [details]
> > > Corrected third fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #37 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #36)
> Created attachment 61968 [details]
> Corrected third fix
>
> This one works.
I checked the first fix. With it on top of your last commit from Monday, July
21,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #29 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> > Hm just changed to HEAD bd0ddee220f0988aec641060021298b343ae6922 (daily bump
> > from Monday July 21 early morning), but still see the problem with the code.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #26)
> > (In reply to kargls from comment #25)
> > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> > > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #26 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #25)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #17)
> > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> > > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #22 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #20)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #19)
>
> The suggestion is that these broke it, not fixed it, to be clear.
Ok, this now coincides with my latest findings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #17)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #15)
> > > > Created attachment 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #19 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #17)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #15)
> > > > Created attachment 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #15)
> > Created attachment 61950 [details]
> > Close-to-minimal reproducer, 186 lines
> >
> > The division of the array pmat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 61950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61950&action=edit
Close-to-minimal reproducer, 186 lines
The division of the array pmatrix%value by trace is not performed elem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 61948
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61948&action=edit
Even shorter reproducer, polarization_test v3
Now ca. 1,400 lines, compare with output file correct.txt. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 61947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61947&action=edit
Shorter reproducer, polarization_test v2
Just a bit more than 4,000 lines, compare the output with correct.tx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #11)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 61945 [details]
> > > Reproducer, single file, first pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I reduced two cases from our code to single files. The ref-output contains the
expected outputs, the err-output the wrong output produced by gcc/gfortran
16.0.0 git master.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61923|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61927|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I added reproducers for the two tests. Unpack, then do make, and then execute
them with ./whizard_test --check vamp2
or
./whizard_test --check polarizations
The files in ref-output tell you the correct outp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 61927
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61927&action=edit
Reproducer, long, second part (vamp2 test)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 61923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61923&action=edit
Reporducer, long, first part (polarization test)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
It seems there might have been another commit between midnight and today early
afternoon (CEST), now I get a lot of segmentation faults, also in several other
tests. I proceed in providing a reproducer but t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121185
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> At least provide the exact options that is used for compiling the source?
>
> Is it -O3 or -Ofast ?
> Do you compile with -march=native .
> What target is the i
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
let me open up an issue already. I believe there was a regression/change
introduced in gfortran between July 12 and July 20, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120371
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> Jürgen,
>
> this is likely a duplicate of pr119928/pr120163 and has been fixed after
> the 15.1 release.
>
> Either upgrade to 15-HEAD, or use -Wno-external-argument-
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 61483
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61483&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
>
> Hi Harald,
> as I reported this to NAG and Intel as well, I got the following reply from
> Malcolm Cohen from NAG:
> "I note that there is an error in your example at line 56: it has
> procedure(dlsym)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #5)
> > as I reported this to NAG and Intel as well, I got the following reply from
> > Malcolm Cohen from NAG:
> > "I note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> It fails for all gfortran versions since at least 7.
>
> NAG says:
>
> Panic: pr119889.f90, line 59: Impossible no interface
> Internal Error -- please report this bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119889
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #1)
> Thankyou for this report. Can you tell us the version number of gfortran?
>
> gfortran -v will list the version.
It fails for sure with the two default compile
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 61169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61169&action=edit
Reproducer
The following code below (and attached) trig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 59993 [details]
> > Reproducer
>
> Thanks for the reproducer. I can confirm the ICE after r15-6408,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 59993
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59993&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is the reproducer:
module lexers
implicit none
private
public :: lexer_t
public :: lexer_init
type :: keyword_list_t
private
end type keyword_list_t
type :: lexer_t
private
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118179
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Thanks for the quick action. I will be back at a computer on the 27th. Then I
will
report a reproducer and test the patch.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
This ICE. has been introduced between Dec 15-23 (incl.)
I will provide a reproducer after Chtistmas:
syntax_rules_sub.f90:360:30:
360 |keyword_list = null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #9)
> Thanks for your forebearance, Juergen. Not only is the regression fixed but
> a much better fix for PR84674 has resulted.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
Thanks, Paul, ag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #6)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 59711 [details]
> > Fix for this PR
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Are you in a position to check this patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #16)
> The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8278d9551df610179fca114808a7e6e62bab3d82
>
> commit r15-5674-g8278d9551df610179fc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #12)
> > > Created attachment 59694 [details]
> > > Fix for this PR
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Potential commits that introduced the regression:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=dd6dbbb5111fba960ad0ee7999a225783e0ae80e
(deals with overridable procedures)
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is the reproducer:
module m1
implicit none
private
public :: t1
type, abstract :: t1
end type t1
end module m1
module t_base
use m1, only: t1
implicit none
private
public :: t_t
ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 59696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59696&action=edit
Reproducer, 70 lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #12)
> Created attachment 59694 [details]
> Fix for this PR
>
> Hi Juergen and Harald,
>
> Mea culpa once again! @Harald: Your pin pointing with the .diff allowed me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> The shortened reproducer fails for me at runtime not only on 15-trunk, but
> on 14-branch too, and with same backtrace, so if we have a regression,
> it should be on 1
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
This regression seems to have been introduced between Nov 18 (still working
HEAD 0dc389f21bfd4ee49d57bcfaa1d1936456c55e48) and Nov 25:
eio_ascii_sub.f90:381:25:
381
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
There are two left-over use statements for modules parser and variables which
need to be taken out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Comment on attachment 59688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59688
Shorter reproducer
>module iso_varying_string
> implicit none
> integer, parameter, private :: GET_BUFFER_LEN = 1
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
This is a shorter reproducer:
1 module iso_varying_string
2implicit none
3integer, parameter, private :: GET_BUFFER_LEN = 1
4
5type, public :: varying_string
6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 59688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59688&action=edit
Shorter reproducer
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 59687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59687&action=edit
Reproducer, ca. 83
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117664
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> GCC trunk now defaults to -std=gnu23. C23 removes unprototyped functions, so
> `void foo()` now means `void foo(void)`.
Thanks, Sam, for the immediate reply. Is tha
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 59629
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59629&action=edit
Rperoducer, hopeful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112459
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86468
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #11)
> Patch proposed: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-August/060882.html
> Waiting for review.
Hi Andre,
great to see you back in action for gcc/gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115983
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Oops, sorry, I had to hurry and closed the laptop. I didn't think that the
issue got already submitted. Here is the reproducer.
gfortran -c state_matrices.f90
state_matrices.f90:76:23:
76 | t2 = t3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115983
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 58703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58703&action=edit
Reproducer
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
The following ICE appear in gfortran 14.1. and goes back to at least gfortran
9.4. The reproducer is somne 80 lines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Richard, unfortunately the fix (it seems it was committed to gcc git master on
last Friday) did not fix our problem yet. The original test case still
segfaults:
Backtrace for this error:
#0 0x7f36f52a3a6c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #27 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #26)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #23)
> > > Created attachment 58486 [details]
> > > Shorter reproduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #26 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #23)
> > Created attachment 58486 [details]
> > Shorter reproducer
> >
> > This is a shorter reproducer, two files of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #25 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #23)
> > Created attachment 58486 [details]
> > Shorter reproducer
> >
> > This is a shorter reproducer, two files of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #23 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 58486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58486&action=edit
Shorter reproducer
This is a shorter reproducer, two files of a few hundred lines each. It seems
that the pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #19 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 58476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58476&action=edit
First independent reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #15)
> > I fund the culprit commit in the gcc master, it is:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;
> > h=1f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I fund the culprit commit in the gcc master, it is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=1fe55a1794863b5ad9eeca5062782834716016b2
by Richard Biener on the tree-optimization. Now I will try helping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #13)
> The daily bump in the morning of Friday, June 14,
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;
> h=028cd77db322d21312680c9a0a7c30565854f577
> shows the segm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The daily bump in the morning of Friday, June 14,
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=028cd77db322d21312680c9a0a7c30565854f577
shows the segmentation fault, so the culprit comment must have happe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #9)
> > Also at the daily bump shortly after midnight morning of June 11,
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #9)
> Also at the daily bump shortly after midnight morning of June 11,
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;
> h=097bc0aebaed58c11c738ea61da723cca950e5b1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Also at the daily bump shortly after midnight morning of June 11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=097bc0aebaed58c11c738ea61da723cca950e5b1
the reproducer still runs fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> (In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #4)
> > > Created attachment 58462 [details]
> > > Input file that triggers the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
First data point:
after the commit from Uros,
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=8bb6b2f4ae19c3aab7d7a5e5c8f5965f89d90e01
at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:09:13
all was still fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargls from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #4)
> > Created attachment 58462 [details]
> > Input file that triggers the test case with segmentation fault
> >
> > This test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 58462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58462&action=edit
Input file that triggers the test case with segmentation fault
This test case needs Whizard 3.1.4 to be downlo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115528
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> what options are you using to compile the source?
> Does it work at -O0?
You are right: the problem doesn't appear for -O0. Our defaults are the libtool
default
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Some changes in gcc/gfortran between ca. June 10 and June 17, 2024 now leeds to
segmenation faults in our application (Whizard v3.1.4, c.f.
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114475
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I suspect this commit here,
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=44c0398e65347def316700911a51ca8b4ec0a411
but not totally certain.
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Between ca. March 18 and March 25, a regression has been introduced into the
gfortran 14.0.1 code, which makes the following valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113471
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> The following patch fixes the reduced testcase for me, as well as the
> full testcase in comment#0:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-arr
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 57136
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57136&action=edit
Reproducer, 154 lines
Very
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
This is probably known (then it can be marked as duplicate), but let me report
it nevertheless. The following code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #56 from Jürgen Reuter ---
What do we do now? We know the offending commit, and the commit that fixed (or
"fixed") it. Closing? Do we understand what happened here, so why it went wrong
and why it got fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #55 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Actually, according to my testing, the last commit where the gfortran produced
failing code,
ishttps://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=c496d15954cdeab7f9039328f94a6f62cf893d5f
(Aldy Hernandez A single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #54 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #53)
> Additional comment: the commit which fixed/"fixed" this offending commit
> came between July 3 and July 10.
Wildly speculating, it would be this commit maybe,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #53 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Additional comment: the commit which fixed/"fixed" this offending commit came
between July 3 and July 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #52 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #51)
> The easiest would be to bisect gcc in the suspected ranges, that way you'd
> know for sure which git commit introduced the problem and which
> fixed/"fixed" it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #50 from Jürgen Reuter ---
How to proceed here? Since almost exactly a month the current gcc git master
doesn't show this problem anymore, from our CI I can deduce that the version on
July 3rd still failed, while the version on July
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
This seems to be a very recent problem: last week (as of July 10) the bootstrap
did still work with the gcc master, and now it is failing, cf. below.
That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110691
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 55560
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55560&action=edit
Shorter reproducer that gives bogus entries.
This shorter reproducer gives (with gfortran 11.3) bogus output,
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 7
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7&action=edit
Reproducer
The attached code (which I believe to be valid F2018) lea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 55526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55526&action=edit
Minimal reproducer, also as attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is a mininal reproducer:
module process_mci
implicit none
private
public :: process_mci_entry_t
type :: process_mci_entry_t
integer :: i_mci = 0
integer, dimension(:), allocatable ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.3.0
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110576
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 55525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55525&action=edit
Simpler reproducer in a single file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #49 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #48)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #47)
> > However, when I use -O2 together with an -march= flag, the code works.
> > I've tested -march=sandybridge, -march=haswell, -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #46 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #45)
> Created attachment 55492 [details]
> Smaller stand-alone reproducer
>
> I will give more information in a comment, this contains 3 files and a
> Makefile.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #45 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 55492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55492&action=edit
Smaller stand-alone reproducer
I will give more information in a comment, this contains 3 files and a
Makefil
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 55490
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55490&action=edit
reproducer
The following reproducer leads to an ICE which I see already with gfortran
11.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110311
--- Comment #44 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #43)
> Mabye the fprem issue was a red herring from the beginning, pointing to a
> problem in a different place.
>
> I recompiled each module in a loop with -O0 until the F
1 - 100 of 755 matches
Mail list logo
