[Bug libfortran/24342] New: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[Bug libfortran/24342] New: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Last known to work with: "Tue Jul 12 03:25:01 UTC 2005".
Known to fail with: "Tue Oct 11 22:12:26 UTC 2005".
I get:
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 execution,  -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 execution,  -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 execution,  -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 execution,  -O3 -g
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 execution,  -Os

With the message in the .log being:
Executing on host: /home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/../gfortran
-B/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/../ \
/home/hp/combined/combined/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90
 -w  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer     -L/home/h\
p/combined/crislinux-sim/ld -static 
-L/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/home/hp/combine\
d/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libiberty  -lm   -o
/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/in-pack.x    (timeout = 3\
00)
PASS: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 compilation,  -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer
program stopped with signal 6.^M
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 execution,  -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer


-- 
           Summary: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-
                    torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: libfortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: cris-axis-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P2                          |P5
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-07 13:09 -------
Is this still the case? No other platform seems to be affected.


-- 

tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-07 23:24 -------
In reply to comment #1, yes.  The message in the log for -O3 and -Os is now:

Executing on host: /home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/../gfortran
-B/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/../ \
/home/hp/combined/combined/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90
 -w  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer     -L/home/h\
p/combined/crislinux-sim/ld -static 
-L/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/home/hp/combine\
d/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libiberty  -lm   -o
/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/gcc/testsuite/in-pack.x    (timeout = 3\
00)
/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/.libs/libgfortran.a(fpu.o):
In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\
/fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and will
always fail^M
output is:
/home/hp/combined/crislinux-sim/cris-axis-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/.libs/libgfortran.a(fpu.o):
In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\
/fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and will
always fail^M

PASS: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 compilation,  -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer
program stopped with signal 6.^M

So I guess you'd see it for targets where floating point rounding cannot be
changed (usually, no hardware support and implemented through fp-bit.c).


-- 

hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-11-07 23:24:28
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-07 23:56 -------
I'm adding FX to the CC list, because this looks like it's related to his patch
for FPU exceptions.


-- 

tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-08 11:08 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\
> /fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and will
> always fail^M

You're seeing this warning only for the in-pack testcase ? Can you try to
compile and run another testcase (not inside the library framework) and tell us
what the compiler/linker says?

Since the in-pack testcase has nothing to do with the set_fpu function, I don't
see how on earth this could happen...

> So I guess you'd see it for targets where floating point rounding cannot be
> changed (usually, no hardware support and implemented through fp-bit.c).

Well, even in that case, that shouldn't happen. If I read the doc correctly, in
that case the FE_* macros are supposed not to be defined, but no warning should
be issued. I'll look into it (but can't promise anything, I don't have access
to such target).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at bitrange dot com]

------- Comment #5 from hp at bitrange dot com  2005-11-09 01:08 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.1 regression] testsuite
 failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-08 11:08 -------
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > In function `*_gfortrani_set_fpu':.\
> > /fpu-target.h:42: warning: warning: fedisableexcept is not implemented and will
> > always fail^M
>
> You're seeing this warning only for the in-pack testcase ?

No, I see it for seemingly *all* test-cases.

> Can you try to
> compile and run another testcase (not inside the library framework) and tell us
> what the compiler/linker says?

I haven't, but please, it's unimportant; don't get hung up on
the warning.  See below.

> Since the in-pack testcase has nothing to do with the set_fpu function, I don't
> see how on earth this could happen...

Don't worry, I do. :-)  It comes from the linker, trigged by the
source code for fedisableexcept, using machinery that's set up
by to warn for functions that shouldn't be used, like in this
case, where it's not (can't be) implemented as the warning says.

> > So I guess you'd see it for targets where floating point rounding cannot be
> > changed (usually, no hardware support and implemented through fp-bit.c).
>
> Well, even in that case, that shouldn't happen. If I read the doc correctly, in
> that case the FE_* macros are supposed not to be defined,

You seem to think they are defined?  They're not, except for a single:
#define FE_ALL_EXCEPT 0

Looking at libgfortran/config/fpu-glibc.h::set_fpu(), I guess it'd help to,
instead of an (unwrapped):
 fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT);

do a:
 if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0)
   fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT);

and let gcc automatically discard the call and reference.

> but no warning should
> be issued.

Not when the function is *called*, but when it's *linked in*.

> I'll look into it (but can't promise anything, I don't have access
> to such target).

This warning is a red herring.  The problem is elsewhere.
Though I'm not likely to look at fortran FAILs myself for a
while.  I just thought it's be better to log it than not.

brgds, H-P


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-09 10:08 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Don't worry, I do. :-)  It comes from the linker, trigged by the
> source code for fedisableexcept, using machinery that's set up
> by to warn for functions that shouldn't be used, like in this
> case, where it's not (can't be) implemented as the warning says.

OK, I see. I was only stating that glibc specifies that the
feenableexcept/fedisableexcept should be available, even if they actually can't
do anything (and in that case, calling them with argument 0 is fine). That's
why I wasn't expecting this issue, and still think the warning not conforming
to the documented behaviour.

> You seem to think they are defined?  They're not, except for a single:
> #define FE_ALL_EXCEPT 0

No, that's what I was thinking should happen. That is OK (and the fpu-glibc.h
code should indeed work fine, that is do nothing).

>  if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0)
>    fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT);

OK, I guess if it removes that warning it's OK. It shouldn't break anything.
I'll do it when I have some time.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-11-07 23:24:28         |2005-11-09 10:08:53
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at bitrange dot com]

------- Comment #7 from hp at bitrange dot com  2005-11-09 10:24 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.1 regression] testsuite
 failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> ------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-09 10:08 -------
> OK, I see. I was only stating that glibc specifies that the
> feenableexcept/fedisableexcept should be available, even if they actually can't
> do anything (and in that case, calling them with argument 0 is fine). That's
> why I wasn't expecting this issue, and still think the warning not conforming
> to the documented behaviour.

Yes, that's a valid point.

> OK, I guess if it removes that warning it's OK. It shouldn't break anything.
> I'll do it when I have some time.

Thanks in advance!

brgds, H-P


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-11 14:17 -------
Still thinking about

> if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0)
>   fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT);

I'm not quite sure gcc would discard the reference. Did you test it, and does
it fix the warning issue? If you didn't do it already, could you test it? I'm a
bit reluctant to include that kind of workaround without being sure it actually
works. Thanks!


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-18 12:47 -------
Fixed in revision 107145 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-11/msg00852.html).
Thanks!


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-18 15:00 -------
No, it's not fixed.  What we fixed was a wholly different thing;
a "red herring" to the problem.  See comment #5.


-- 

hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-19 07:18 -------
Between "Sat Nov 12 22:59:48 UTC 2005 (revision 106840M)"
and "Sun Nov 13 07:41:36 UTC 2005 (revision 106853M)"
there was a changed that made the -Os case now pass,
still true with "Fri Nov 18 17:28:22 UTC 2005 (revision 107186M)".


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug middle-end/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-20 16:07 -------
If -Os works and the rest of the optimization levels work, then this is a
middle-end issue.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|libfortran                  |middle-end


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug middle-end/24342] [4.1/4.2 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|REOPENED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug middle-end/24342] [4.1/4.2 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-23 00:09 -------
*** Bug 22382 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug target/24342] [4.1/4.2 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-23 00:45 -------
Subject: Bug 24342

Author: hp
Date: Fri Dec 23 00:45:36 2005
New Revision: 108998

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108998
Log:
        PR target/24342
        * config/cris/cris.c (cris_split_movdx): Add REG_INC notes for
        emitted insns with post-increments.
        (cris_expand_epilogue): Ditto.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/config/cris/cris.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug target/24342] [4.1/4.2 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.1.0                       |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug target/24342] [4.1/4.2 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-29 04:27 -------
Subject: Bug 24342

Author: hp
Date: Thu Dec 29 04:27:24 2005
New Revision: 109137

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109137
Log:
        PR target/24342
        * config/cris/cris.c (cris_split_movdx): Add REG_INC notes for
        emitted insns with post-increments.
        (cris_expand_epilogue): Ditto.

Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/config/cris/cris.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342

[Bug target/24342] [4.1/4.2 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-29 04:31 -------
Fixed, 4.1 and HEAD/4.2.


-- 

hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|4.2.0                       |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342