From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 69518 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2018 19:39:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact fortran-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: fortran-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 69432 invoked by uid 89); 24 Sep 2018 19:39:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,GIT_PATCH_1,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=survive, somebody, H*f:sk:5BA9156, H*i:sk:5BA9156 X-HELO: mail-yw1-f66.google.com Received: from mail-yw1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-yw1-f66.google.com) (209.85.161.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:39:11 +0000 Received: by mail-yw1-f66.google.com with SMTP id j131-v6so8342355ywc.13; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:39:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JK7OyHOKCiTwfWySZTMGdOStURxvPg6m+P3Y7QHvaDE=; b=UR0zB2Ihfph2u4EKRRz7QoTRll5FOc37AmNFQbFYqwrFnEuQZsZIHN7fJEoiN391hy dhbkx/F/8Ol/D9Zram2nMt1kzTHBc+TNzEY4K8FvAf72ltCPDt1sEIOQGbvKpGm/UEgR pW741KBk3vNu+FwTA6RaHYKU06YFvu7GxsWeyWAIv6Iy0TqEiY5iDC7ZDe3MZXRc82y9 QvJ0qxJWlirhSjARS6XWNrTSugeoOCjndQgbGaChAC+vFR8saBfBnzeTq9FW8mSALd++ qunS1qYmQ/Ys79/INXM6aNldpPqWRggKnP+FedZjO/TU3f1WSt4TW8iqTnGjObb6zI4R 2dmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180922192149.32661-1-blomqvist.janne@gmail.com> <5BA91564.5010805@foss.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <5BA91564.5010805@foss.arm.com> From: Janne Blomqvist Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do array index calculations in gfc_array_index_type To: Kyrill Tkachov Cc: Andreas Schwab , Fortran List , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 7:48 PM Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi all, > > On 24/09/18 14:54, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Sep 22 2018, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > > > > > +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock > \\(four.token, .*\\(1 - four.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\), > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(7 - four.dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), > &acquired.\[0-9\]+, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock \\(four.token, 1 - > four.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, 7 - four.dim\\\[1\\\].lbound, &acquired.\[0-9\]+, > &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > > > +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock > \\(four.token, .*\\(2 - four.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\), > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(8 - four.dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0B, 0B, > 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(four.token, 2 - four.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, 8 - > four.dim\\\[1\\\].lbound, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > > > > This is wrong for ILP32. > > > > To be more concrete, this FAILs on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf: > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times original > "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(four.token, .*\\(1 - four.dim\\[0\\].lbound\\), > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(7 - four.dim\\[1\\].lbound\\), > &acquired.[0-9]+, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock \\(four.token, 1 - > four.dim\\[0\\].lbound, 7 - four.dim\\[1\\].lbound, &acquired.[0-9]+, &ii, > 0B, 0\\);" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times original > "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(four.token, .*\\(2 - four.dim\\[0\\].lbound\\), > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(8 - four.dim\\[1\\].lbound\\), 0B, 0B, > 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(four.token, 2 - four.dim\\[0\\].lbound, 8 - > four.dim\\[1\\].lbound, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 > > > Thanks, > Kyrill > Ugh. My 32-bit tree is in a bit of a disarray at the moment (my lxd container setup didn't survive the upgrade to ubuntu 18.04), can somebody send me the .original tree dump? -- Janne Blomqvist