Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37336 finalization

[Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2931 bytes --]

Hi Richard,

Smart pointer applications really torture finalization. That's why Andrew
and Salvatore's help has been so much appreciated.

I haven't run the polyhedron suite for some little while and so I just
downloaded it. I ran into a significant problem with the harness. The
binary segfaulted before doing anything and the source appeared to be
geared towards Intel but I couldn't get it to compile even with ifort. I
replaced all the offending bits of code with standard calls and put the
tests on to cook. The posted linux tests were done with gcc-7.4 so I will
rerun the suite with that and compare the outcomes. So far I haven't seen
any problems. On the contrary, some invalid code nasties were picked up:
 3586 |          DO ij = 1 , 3
      |                      2
 3587 |             QUGii(ij) = 0.
 3588 |             QCOni(ij) = 0.
      |                  1
Warning: Array reference at (1) out of bounds (3 > 2) in loop beginning at
(2)
doduc.f90:3587:26:

 3587 |             QUGii(ij) = 0.
      |                          ^
Warning: iteration 2 invokes undefined behavior
[-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
doduc.f90:3586:16:
and
gas_dyn2.f90:435:21:

   59 |       SUBROUTINE KEEL(NODES, DX, RADIUS, RBOUND, VEL, DENS, IENER,
     &
      |                     2
......
  435 |       SUBROUTINE KEEL(NODES, DX, RADIUS, RBOUND, VEL, DENS, IENER,
     &
      |                     1
Warning: Shape mismatch in dimension 1 of argument 'dx' between (1) and (2)
The IEEE underflow and denormal errors are also flagged.

As soon as the runs are finished, I will post the results.

@Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>  Thanks for the pointer to Octopus. I'll
give it a whirl tonight.

Cheers

Paul


On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:10, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> > On 08.03.23 09:14, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > While Fortran is not considered release critical it would be bad to
> > > break say the build of SPEC CPU 2017 or Polyhedron very late in the
> > > cycle.  I'd lean towards postponing this to early stage1 and eventually
> > > backport it for GCC 13.2 if you would like this feature to be
> implemented
> > > for GCC 13.
> >
> > And now comes the problem - no Fortran maintanier has access to SPEC
> > 2017, as far as I know.  The curse of closed-source benchmarks...
>
> :/
>
> But at least you can watch https://lnt.opensuse.org after-the-fact
>
> > How extensive is SPEC using finalization?  My personal guess would be
> > that it is not used extensively, since gfortran's implementation is
> > pretty broken at the moment.
>
> I'd say it probably doesn't use it.  But I was more worrying about
> unwanted side-effects on code _not_ using finalization.
>
> Do you know of any medium to large size Fortran code base that
> uses finalization?
>
> Richard.
>


-- 
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" -
Albert Einstein