* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-19 16:31 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 16:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-19 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 16:30 -------
No gfortran devleoper has hpux. Can you find some details about the error?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 16:31 ` [Bug fortran/21594] " tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-19 16:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 19:35 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-19 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 16:50 -------
Confirmed, this also fails on powerpc-darwin.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
GCC build triplet|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |
GCC host triplet|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |
GCC target triplet|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
| |powerpc-darwin7.8
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-05-19 16:50:17
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 16:31 ` [Bug fortran/21594] " tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 16:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-19 19:35 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 22:22 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-19 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 19:16 -------
It has never worked on HP-UX at least, see here, e.g.:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-05/msg00134.html
I have no idea why it would only fail at -O0 though, the .original dump on
i586-linux looks fine, and there's nothing strongly system specific in it.
Also, it's not a 32bit vs. 64bit issue, as can be seen from these testresults:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-05/msg01228.html -- here the test
fails at -O0 for 32bits, but passes for 64bit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-19 19:35 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-19 22:22 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-19 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:22 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> I have no idea why it would only fail at -O0 though, the .original dump on
> i586-linux looks fine, and there's nothing strongly system specific in it.
This may be due to an uninitialized variable.
Does this also fail on 4.1 (which has the initialization fixes in)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-19 22:22 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-19 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-19 23:10 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-19 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19 22:28 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Does this also fail on 4.1 (which has the initialization fixes in)?
Yes as of last night at least.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-19 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-19 23:10 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-05-27 16:06 ` uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2005-05-19 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-05-19 23:10 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
> > I have no idea why it would only fail at -O0 though, the .original dump on
> > i586-linux looks fine, and there's nothing strongly system specific in it.
>
> This may be due to an uninitialized variable.
As of last night, it failed on hppa-linux:
May 19 01:37:57 gsyprf11 kernel: do_page_fault() pid=29787 command='eoshift.exe'
type=15 address=0x00000000
Failure is caused by dereferencing a null pointer.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/dave/gcc-4.1/objdir/gcc/testsuite/eoshift.xg
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000109a8 in MAIN__ ()
at /home/dave/gcc-4.1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90:5
5 write (line,'(I4)') eoshift((/1, 3/), 3)
Current language: auto; currently fortran
(gdb) bt
#0 0x000109a8 in MAIN__ ()
at /home/dave/gcc-4.1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90:5
#1 0x00010a00 in main (argc=Variable "argc" is not available.
) at ../../../gcc/libgfortran/fmain.c:18
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-19 23:10 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2005-05-27 16:06 ` uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-13 22:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-27 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-27 16:05 -------
I'm seeing the failure on s390 as well. What appears to happen is that
the main program calls the library routine
static void
eoshift0 (gfc_array_char * ret, const gfc_array_char * array,
int shift, const char * pbound, int which)
with a correctly set up 'ret' array descriptor, but after the routine
returns, the ret->data pointer has been clobbered to NULL. The main
routine then segfaults when accessing data via that pointer.
The pointer is clobbered by the memcpy in line 165:
while (n--)
{
memcpy (dest, pbound, size);
dest += roffset;
}
which is presumably not intended to overwrite the descriptor. I'm
assuming this is some sort of buffer overflow bug ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-27 16:06 ` uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-13 22:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-14 10:36 ` uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-13 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-13 22:37 -------
Subject: Bug 21594
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org 2005-06-13 22:37:40
Modified files:
libgfortran : ChangeLog
libgfortran/intrinsics: eoshift0.c eoshift2.c
Log message:
2005-06-12 Thomas Koenig <Thomas.Koenig@online.de>
PR libfortran/21594
* intrinsics/eoshift0.c: Add prototype for eoshift0.
* intrinsics/eoshift2.c: Add prototype for eoshift2.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.238&r2=1.239
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/eoshift0.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/eoshift2.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-13 22:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-14 10:36 ` uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-22 11:41 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-14 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-14 10:36 -------
A change like this:
static void
+eoshift0 (gfc_array_char * , const gfc_array_char *,
+ int, const char *, int);
+
+static void
eoshift0 (gfc_array_char * ret, const gfc_array_char * array,
int shift, const char * pbound, int which)
doesn't have any effect, since a function definition in non-K&R
style already provides prototype information to subsequent code,
same as a function declaration does. (A declaration is useful
and required at places where the function definition is *not*
already seen.)
In fact, I thought that since we require C89 for the C parts of
the compiler, the coding style recommends *not* providing such
superfluous declarations ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-14 10:36 ` uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-22 11:41 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-23 20:22 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-22 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-22 11:41 -------
This can be made to fail on any architecture by increasing
the amount of shifting:
$ cat eoshift-really-fails.f90
program main
character(len=20) line
write (line,'(I4)') eoshift((/1, 3/), 1000)
end program main
$ gfortran eoshift-really-fails.f90
$ ./a.out
Segmentation fault
$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050618/configure --prefix=/home/zfkts --enable-
languages=c,f95
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050618 (experimental)
The problem is that the code tries to overwrite more than it should
for shift > len.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-22 11:41 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-23 20:22 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-27 9:53 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-23 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-23 20:22 -------
Looks like Thomas indentified a whole bunch of problems in EOSHIFT ...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |22142, 22143
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-23 20:22 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-27 9:53 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-07 22:02 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-27 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-27 09:53 -------
Created an attachment (id=9157)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9157&action=view)
Patch fixing the issue with overwriting the target array.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #9058 is|0 |1
obsolete| |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-27 9:53 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-07 22:02 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-07 22:04 ` [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-07 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-07 22:02 -------
Subject: Bug 21594
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org 2005-07-07 22:01:41
Modified files:
libgfortran : ChangeLog
libgfortran/m4 : eoshift1.m4 eoshift3.m4
libgfortran/generated: eoshift1_4.c eoshift1_8.c eoshift3_4.c
eoshift3_8.c
libgfortran/intrinsics: eoshift0.c eoshift2.c
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute:
intrinsic_eoshift.f90
Log message:
2005-07-07 Thomas Koenig <Thomas.Koenig@online.de>
PR libfortran/21594
* intrinsics/eoshift0.c: If abs(shift) > len, fill the
the whole array with the boundary value, but don't overrun it.
* intrinsics/eoshift2.c: Likewise.
* m4/eoshift1.m4: Likewise.
* m4/eoshift3.m4: Likewise.
* generated/eoshift1_4.c: Regenerated.
* generated/eoshift1_8.c: Regenerated.
* generated/eoshift3_4.c: Regenerated.
* generated/eoshift3_8.c: Regenerated.
2005-07-07 Thomas Koenig <Thomas.Koenig@online.de>
PR libfortran/21594
* gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_eoshift.f90:
Add test cases where the shift length is greater than the
array length.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.256&r2=1.257
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/m4/eoshift1.m4.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/m4/eoshift3.m4.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_4.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_8.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift3_4.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift3_8.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/eoshift0.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/eoshift2.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.5736&r2=1.5737
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_eoshift.f90.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-07 22:02 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-07 22:04 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-14 21:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-07 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-07 22:04 -------
This should be gone now on mainline.
Waiting for 4.0 to reopen.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |4.0.1
Known to work| |4.1.0
Summary|FAIL: |[4.0 only] FAIL:
|gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0|gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0
|execution test |execution test
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-07 22:04 ` [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-14 21:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-14 21:19 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-14 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-14 21:17 -------
Subject: Bug 21594
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org 2005-07-14 21:17:44
Modified files:
libgfortran : ChangeLog
libgfortran/generated: cshift1_4.c cshift1_8.c eoshift1_4.c
eoshift1_8.c eoshift3_4.c eoshift3_8.c
libgfortran/intrinsics: eoshift0.c eoshift2.c
libgfortran/m4 : cshift1.m4 eoshift1.m4 eoshift3.m4
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute:
intrinsic_eoshift.f90
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg: shift-alloc.f90
Log message:
2005-07-14 Thomas Koenig <Thomas.Koenig@online.de>
Backport from mainline.
PR libfortran/21594
PR libfortran/22142
PR libfortran/22144
* intrinsics/eoshift0.c: If abs(shift) > len, fill the
the whole array with the boundary value, but don't overrun it.
* intrinsics/eoshift2.c: Likewise.
* m4/eoshift1.m4: Likewise.
* m4/eoshift3.m4: Likewise.
* m4/eoshift1.m4: Correct bstride (it needs to be multiplied
by size since it's a char pointer).
* m4/eoshift3.m4: Likewise.
* m4/cshift1.m4: Remove const from argument ret.
Populate return array descriptor if ret->data is NULL.
* m4/eoshift1.m4: Likewise.
* generated/eoshift1_4.c: Regenerated.
* generated/eoshift1_8.c: Regenerated.
* generated/eoshift3_4.c: Regenerated.
* generated/eoshift3_8.c: Regenerated.
2005-07-14 Thomas Koenig <Thomas.Koenig@online.de>
Backport from mainline:
PR libfortran/21594
PR libfortran/22144
PR libfortran/22142
* gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_eoshift.f90:
Add test cases where the shift length is greater than the
array length.
Add test cases for PR 22142 for eoshift1 and eoshift3.
* gfortran.dg/shift-alloc.f90: New testcase.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.163.2.61&r2=1.163.2.62
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/cshift1_4.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5.12.1&r2=1.5.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/cshift1_8.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5.12.1&r2=1.5.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_4.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5.12.1&r2=1.5.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_8.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5.12.1&r2=1.5.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift3_4.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5.12.1&r2=1.5.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/generated/eoshift3_8.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5.12.1&r2=1.5.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/eoshift0.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.9.12.1&r2=1.9.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/eoshift2.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.9.12.1&r2=1.9.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/m4/cshift1.m4.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.6.12.1&r2=1.6.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/m4/eoshift1.m4.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.6.12.1&r2=1.6.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/m4/eoshift3.m4.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.6.12.1&r2=1.6.12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5084.2.276&r2=1.5084.2.277
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_eoshift.f90.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.2&r2=1.2.46.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/shift-alloc.f90.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=NONE&r2=1.1.8.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-14 21:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-14 21:19 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-14 21:21 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-14 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-14 21:19 -------
Fixed in 4.0.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-14 21:19 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-14 21:21 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-14 21:47 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-10 20:32 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-14 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 21594 depends on bug 22142, which changed state.
Bug 22142 Summary: [4.0 only] eoshift: boundary not filled in correctly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22142
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-14 21:21 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-14 21:47 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-10 20:32 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-14 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 21594 depends on bug 22144, which changed state.
Bug 22144 Summary: [4.0 only] eoshift1, eoshift3, cshift1 lack memory allocation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22144
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/21594] [4.0 only] FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test
2005-05-15 21:08 [Bug fortran/21594] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eoshift.f90 -O0 execution test danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-14 21:47 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-08-10 20:32 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-08-10 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 21594 depends on bug 22143, which changed state.
Bug 22143 Summary: missing kinds 1 and 2 for eoshift and cshift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22143
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21594
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread