--- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 12:48 ---
FIXED on the trunk (GCC 4.6).
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 43178
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 6 12:46:19 2010
New Revision: 157993
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157993
Log:
2010-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/43178
--- Comment #16 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-27 18:53 ---
What is the status of this one Tobias?
I'll confirm it whilst I'm here :-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 19:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=19989)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19989&action=view)
Really fix -fno-automatic -- attached the wrong patch which missed a "== 0" in
trans-decl.
As pointed out by Do
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 17:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=19988)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19988&action=view)
Another update - handle -fno-automatic & fixes ICE in comment #11
Fixes ICE in comment #11, handles STATIC impl
--- Comment #13 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-28 11:20 ---
> Thanks for testing! In trans-array.c's gfc_trans_deferred_array, my current
> version has
>
> - if (sym->value)
> + if (sym->value == NULL || !has_default_initializer (sym->ts.u.derived))
> ^^
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-27 12:24 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> With the patch in comment #10, the tests in pr40440 (the original one and the
> one in comment #2 give an ICE:
Thanks for testing! In trans-array.c's gfc_trans_deferred_array, my current
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-27 10:35 ---
With the patch in comment #10, the tests in pr40440 (the original one and the
one in comment #2 give an ICE:
Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at address:
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 23:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=19972)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19972&action=view)
Next try - regtested, but not poofread
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remove
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-26 21:07 ---
Additional failures (both -m32 and -m64)
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/data.f90 execution, -O0
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/data.f90 execution, -O1
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/data.f
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-26 19:37 ---
First failures
FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_dealloc_1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times original
"__builtin_free" 5 <- should be 4
FAIL: gfortran.dg/common_resize_1.f -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/common_resize_1
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-26 19:27 ---
> Change attr.is_main_program to sym->ns->proc_name->attr.is_main_program
This change fixes most of the failures I have seen. Is
if (TREE_STATIC (decl) && !sym->attr.use_assoc
&& (sym->attr.save || sym->att
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 16:37 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The first obvious wrong code is for gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/streamio_6.f90:
> but without the patch a[100] is not intialized
> > static integer(kind=4) a[100];
In trans-decl.c:
if (T
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-26 16:29 ---
Another failing test is gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/data_char_2.f90:
without patch
< static character(kind=1) intstr[1:10] = "0123456789";
with patch
> static character(kind=1) intstr[1:10];
Note that in order
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-26 14:38 ---
The first obvious wrong code is for gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/streamio_6.f90:
The original dump without the patch shows
< static integer(kind=4) a[100] = {13, 9, 34, 41, 25, 98, 6, 12, 11, 44, 79,
3, 64, 61, 77, 5
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-26 14:30 ---
With the patch in comment #2, I see a dozen runtime failure on my tests. I'll
need some time to analyse them (I have to separate invalid codes that pass by
chance from valid code that are miscompiled).
So keep tuned!-
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 07:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=19966)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19966&action=view)
Improved patch
This patch changes:
a) There was a bug, which causes that non-SAVEd variables in procedures wher
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-25 23:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=19962)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19962&action=view)
Draft patch - regtests, but needs some audit
The attached patch drastically reduces the generated code
(-fdump-t
18 matches
Mail list logo
