* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
@ 2004-07-06 15:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-12 13:12 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-06 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-06 15:39 -------
Please attach the file and also try gfortran instead of g95 as we do not support g95.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-07-06 15:39 ` [Bug fortran/16382] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-12 13:12 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-07-12 14:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de @ 2004-07-12 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-07-12 13:12 -------
Sorry, I can't disclose the fortran file, too complex, I might at a later time
reduce it to a testcase
However in the meantime I stumbled across a similar problem when compiling
qemu-0.6.0:
> wget http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/qemu-0.6.0.tar.gz
> gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-suse-linux/3.3/specs
Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man
--libdir=/usr/lib --enable-languages=c,c++,f77,objc,java,ada --disable-checking
--enable-libgcj --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/g++ --with-slibdir=/lib
--with-system-zlib --enable-shared --enable-__cxa_atexit i486-suse-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3 20030226 (prerelease) (SuSE Linux)
>./configure --prefix=/opt
>./make
gcc -Wall -O2 -g -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -falign-functions=0 -fno-reorder-blocks
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -I[...lots of includes...] -c -o op.o
./qemu-0.6.0/target-ppc/op.c: In function `op_cmpli':
./qemu-0.6.0/target-ppc/op.c:1022: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn:HI 47 17 48 2 (nil) (set (reg:CC 17 flags)
(compare:CC (symbol_ref:SI ("__op_param1"))
(reg/v:SI 3 ebx))) -1 (nil)
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:SI 3 ebx)
(nil)))
./qemu-0.6.0/target-ppc/op.c:1022: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2175
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-07-06 15:39 ` [Bug fortran/16382] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-12 13:12 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
@ 2004-07-12 14:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-13 7:15 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-12 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-12 14:46 -------
Two points:
you are using G95 which is different from gfortran and is based a much older snapshot of the tree-ssa.
Second is the ICE for the C testcase is a different problem and is fixed in later versions of 3.3.x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-12 14:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-13 7:15 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-07-15 20:00 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de @ 2004-07-13 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-07-13 07:15 -------
I cannot get to this stage with gfortran, since the compilation breaks long
before due to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15324
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-13 7:15 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
@ 2004-07-15 20:00 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-16 9:56 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-15 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-15 20:00 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> I cannot get to this stage with gfortran, since the compilation breaks long
> before due to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15324
>
Can you try again please? PR 15324 is fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-15 20:00 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-16 9:56 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-07-19 9:27 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de @ 2004-07-16 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-07-16 09:56 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > I cannot get to this stage with gfortran, since the compilation breaks long
> > before due to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15324
> >
>
> Can you try again please? PR 15324 is fixed now.
Checked out this morning, version 3.5.0 20040715, seems PR 15324 isn't solved
for me, see PR 16499 (reopened, test cases attached).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-16 9:56 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
@ 2004-07-19 9:27 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-08-31 5:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de @ 2004-07-19 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-07-19 09:27 -------
Alright, since PR 15324 is fixed, I get a little bit further with version 07-19.
However, still I can't compile the necessary libraries due to another (not yet
implemented) feature, which is reported in PR 12840
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-19 9:27 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
@ 2004-08-31 5:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-31 7:46 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-31 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31 05:58 -------
Can you try again because most of 12840 is fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-31 5:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-08-31 7:46 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-08-31 16:57 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de @ 2004-08-31 7:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-08-31 07:46 -------
Yep, trying again... and getting further but not quite there yet! At least I'm
not running int 12840 related stuff any more. However, this one is now
blocked by PR 17244 and another unreported bug. Which I'm not reporting since I
don't know whether the code's correct but all other compilers do compile while
gfortran only says:
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
I tried to isolate the segfault to make a proper PR but I wasn't able to track
down the error, will try later (2 weeks from now...)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-31 7:46 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
@ 2004-08-31 16:57 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-01 7:40 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-09-16 9:31 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-31 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 16382 depends on bug 17244, which changed state.
Bug 17244 Summary: gfortran fatal error: gfc_todo: Not Implemented: Returning derived types
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17244
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-31 16:57 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-01 7:40 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
2004-09-16 9:31 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de @ 2004-09-01 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-09-01 07:40 -------
Getting further every time, thanks guys. Now blocked by PR 17202 and still
getting the segfault.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |17202
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/16382] ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD
2004-07-06 10:44 [Bug fortran/16382] New: ice-on [in?]valid code REG_DEAD c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-01 7:40 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
@ 2004-09-16 9:31 ` c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de @ 2004-09-16 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-09-16 09:31 -------
Seems to be an OPP (other people's problem), marked as invalid for gcc. May I
propose to include some form of the testcase in the testsuite any way?
BTW, code works fine with nag and portland group compilers, only g95 chokes.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn|12840, 17202, 17244 |
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16382
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread