public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
@ 2006-01-28 6:01 jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 7:12 ` [Bug regression/26001] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (25 more replies)
0 siblings, 26 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-28 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The LAPACK testsuite fails with the following error message with -O3
-march=pentium4 -funroll-loops:
At line 1162 of file schkee.f
Fortran runtime error: Bad integer for item 1 in list input
This is not a gfortran frontend problem because LAPACK passes fine without
optimization.
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../main/configure --prefix=/home/jerry/gcc/usr
--enable-languages=c,fortran --disable-libmudflap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060126 (experimental)
I have not tried 4.1 yet. This might be considered critical considering the
widespread use of LAPACK.
--
Summary: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: regression
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/26001] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-28 7:12 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 7:13 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (24 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-28 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 07:12 -------
Created an attachment (id=10746)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10746&action=view)
Source file that fails.
Attached is the source file.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/26001] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 7:12 ` [Bug regression/26001] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-28 7:13 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:42 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-28 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-28 07:13 -------
I have confirmed this failure is in 4.1 as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/26001] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 7:12 ` [Bug regression/26001] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 7:13 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 18:42 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:49 ` [Bug fortran/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:42 -------
For a reduced testscase see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-01/msg00407.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 18:42 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 18:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:52 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:49 -------
I have a feeling it is one of the string patches that went in around the 8th.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Component|regression |fortran
Summary|LAPACK testsuite failure |[4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK
|with optimization |testsuite failure with
| |optimization
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 18:49 ` [Bug fortran/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 18:52 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:59 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26001] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:51 -------
There were not many changes to the tree during that time. I think the only
possible culprit is Feng Wang's patch for length-one characters.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org,
| |fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-01-30 18:51:54
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 18:52 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 18:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:59 -------
It was the patch which changed string(c:c) == string1(c:c) to be inlined but it
is a latent bug from looking at the tree dumps.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|fortran |tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 18:59 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26001] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:07 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:02 -------
Complete unrolling is causing it but I have not looked why.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:07 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:08 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:07 -------
Did the regression also happen on 4.1? We should probably revert Feng Wang's
patch there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:07 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:08 -------
Actually it is not complete unrolling that is going wrong but expand.
static char intstr[1:10] = "0123456789";
;; if (c1$1 == intstr[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1}) (void) 0; else goto <L35>;
(insn 85 83 86 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (reg:QI 68 [ c1$1 ])
(const_int 49 [0x31]))) -1 (nil)
(nil))
See how we compare that again '1' and not '0'.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:08 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:23 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:13 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Did the regression also happen on 4.1? We should probably revert Feng Wang's
> patch there.
But there is a latent bug. I don't know a way to reproduce this without Feng's
patch in C or C++, maybe Ada. But the bug is still there.
Here is the reduced testcase that passes at -O0 but fails at -O1.
CHARACTER*10 INTSTR
CHARACTER C1
DATA INTSTR / '0123456789' /
C1 = INTSTR(1:1)
print *, C1
if(C1 .ne. '0') call abort()
end
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:23 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:23 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Did the regression also happen on 4.1? We should probably revert Feng Wang's
> > patch there.
>
> But there is a latent bug. I don't know a way to reproduce this without Feng's
> patch in C or C++, maybe Ada. But the bug is still there.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so let me rephrase: given the advanced
state of 4.1 in the relase cycle, it may make sense to revert Feng Wang's patch
in 4.1, and to fix the underlying bug only in the trunk.
> Here is the reduced testcase that passes at -O0 but fails at -O1.
> CHARACTER*10 INTSTR
> CHARACTER C1
> DATA INTSTR / '0123456789' /
>
> C1 = INTSTR(1:1)
> print *, C1
> if(C1 .ne. '0') call abort()
>
> end
Thanks, do you still get '1' in the RTL dump if you change INSTR? IOW, does it
address the elements of the string incorrectly,
if (c1[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1} != "0"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1})
^^^
this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:23 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:27 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so let me rephrase: given the advanced
> state of 4.1 in the relase cycle, it may make sense to revert Feng Wang's patch
> in 4.1, and to fix the underlying bug only in the trunk.
That might be a good idea, I was just not thinking too well today for some
reason.
> > Here is the reduced testcase that passes at -O0 but fails at -O1.
> > CHARACTER*10 INTSTR
> > CHARACTER C1
> > DATA INTSTR / '0123456789' /
> >
> > C1 = INTSTR(1:1)
> > print *, C1
> > if(C1 .ne. '0') call abort()
> >
> > end
>
> Thanks, do you still get '1' in the RTL dump if you change INSTR? IOW, does it
> address the elements of the string incorrectly,
>
> if (c1[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1} != "0"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1})
> ^^^
> this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error.
[1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds
starting at 0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:37 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:32 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> > this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error.
>
> [1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds
> starting at 0.
I should mention the off by the one error is in expand, where it forgets to
take into account the lower bound of the array.
I will be fixing this after my current bootstrap/test finishes for a different
expand bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:37 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:37 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > > this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error.
> >
> > [1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds
> > starting at 0.
>
> I should mention the off by the one error is in expand, where it forgets to
> take into account the lower bound of the array.
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > > this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error.
> >
> > [1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds
> > starting at 0.
>
> I should mention the off by the one error is in expand, where it forgets to
> take into account the lower bound of the array.
Sounds like the tree-optimizers should have replaced "0"[1] with '0'. This
also sounds like it was pure chance that the bug didn't trigger at -O0.
> I will be fixing this after my current bootstrap/test finishes for a different
> expand bug.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:37 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-30 19:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 4:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-30 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:39 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> Sounds like the tree-optimizers should have replaced "0"[1] with '0'. This
> also sounds like it was pure chance that the bug didn't trigger at -O0.
Yes they should have but that is a tottally different issue which was filed (I
forgot the number).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-30 19:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-31 4:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 5:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-31 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 04:56 -------
The bug is around expr.c:7128.
Working on this.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-31 4:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-31 5:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 5:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-31 5:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 05:19 -------
Created an attachment (id=10765)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10765&action=view)
Patch which still needs to bootstrap/tested but it works on my simple example
ChangeLog:
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) <case ARRAY_REF>: Use the corrected index for
the character
out of the string constant.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-31 5:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-31 5:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 6:39 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-31 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 05:33 -------
Note if PR 22303 was fixed, then the code in expr.c could be removed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-31 5:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-31 6:39 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 14:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-31 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 06:39 -------
I ran the full LAPACK test suite and it successfully passes with the patch in
comment #17. Results are pretty good/typical for -O3.
$ grep fail *.out
cgd.out: CGV drivers: 67 out of 1092 tests failed to pass the threshold
csep.out: CST: 2 out of 4662 tests failed to pass the threshold
csep.out: CST drivers: 1 out of 11664 tests failed to pass the threshold
dgd.out: DXV drivers: 200 out of 5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
sgd.out: SXV drivers: 37 out of 5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
ssep.out: SST: 1 out of 4662 tests failed to pass the threshold
ssep.out: SST drivers: 1 out of 14256 tests failed to pass the threshold
ssvd.out: SBD: 1 out of 5510 tests failed to pass the threshold
zgd.out: ZGV drivers: 66 out of 1092 tests failed to pass the threshold
zgd.out: ZXV drivers: 24 out of 5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-31 6:39 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-31 14:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-01 1:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-31 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 14:05 -------
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg02187.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
| |patches/2006-
| |01/msg02187.html
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-01 1:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-01 1:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-01 3:09 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-01 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 01:04 -------
Fixed on the mainline for now and I will ask Mark what we should do for 4.1.0
tomorrow.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.1/4.2 Regression] expand |[4.1 Regression] expand uses
|uses the wrong part of the |the wrong part of the string
|string for array accesses |for array accesses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-31 14:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-01 1:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-01 1:04 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-01 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 01:03 -------
Subject: Bug 26001
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Feb 1 01:03:52 2006
New Revision: 110465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110465
Log:
2006-01-31 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/26001
* gfortran.dg/data_char_2.f90: New.
2006-01-31 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/26001
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) <case ARRAY_REF>:
Use the corrected index for the character
out of the string constant.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/data_char_2.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/expr.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-01 1:04 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-01 3:09 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-01 3:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #23 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 03:09 -------
This is not release-critical, until/unless someone has a C/C++ test case.
However, if the change is approved for mainline, and applies to 4.1, then it
is OK for 4.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-01 3:09 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-04 7:51 ` fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-03 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #25 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-03 18:31 -------
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-04 7:51 ` fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-03 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #24 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-03 18:31 -------
Subject: Bug 26001
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Feb 3 18:31:14 2006
New Revision: 110551
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110551
Log:
2006-01-31 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/26001
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) <case ARRAY_REF>:
Use the corrected index for the character
out of the string constant.
2006-01-31 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
PR middle-end/26001
* gfortran.dg/data_char_2.f90: New.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/data_char_2.f90
- copied unchanged from r110465,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/data_char_2.f90
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/expr.c
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-04 7:51 ` fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-04 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #26 from fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 07:51 -------
Andrew, thank you for fixing this so quickly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-04 7:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-01-28 6:01 [Bug regression/26001] New: LAPACK testsuite failure with optimization jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 7:12 ` [Bug regression/26001] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 7:13 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:42 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:49 ` [Bug fortran/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:52 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 18:59 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26001] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:07 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:08 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:23 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1/4.2 Regression] expand uses the wrong part of the string for array accesses tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:37 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-30 19:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 4:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 5:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 5:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 6:39 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-31 14:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-01 1:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-01 1:04 ` [Bug middle-end/26001] [4.1 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-01 3:09 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-03 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-04 7:51 ` fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).