* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
@ 2005-10-17 11:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-17 11:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-17 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 11:29 -------
Hmm:
li r2,0
lfd f13,56(r1)
addis r27,r31,ha16(L__gfortran_filename$non_lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$pb")
stw r0,56(r1)
addis r28,r31,ha16(L__gfortran_line$non_lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$pb")
fcmpu cr7,f13,f0
stw r2,60(r1)
We are loading from 56(r1) before storing to it.
We have an aliasing issue.
The union looks correct.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |alias, wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
2005-10-17 11:29 ` [Bug fortran/24406] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-17 11:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-17 18:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-17 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 11:30 -------
-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing works .
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
2005-10-17 11:29 ` [Bug fortran/24406] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-17 11:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-17 18:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-17 18:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-17 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 18:00 -------
The code is illegal, and therefore gfortran can do anything
it wants (including start WW III).
(1) rteps is never defined, so it can't be reference in the IF
statement.
(2) Even if rteps was defined prior to the assignments of irt(1) and
irt(2), rteps would become undefined via 14.7.6(1) of the standard.
(3) The use of BOZ literal constants here is nonstandard although
gfortran may permit its use in this manner (I haven't checked).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-17 18:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-17 18:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-23 22:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-17 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 18:01 -------
Forgot to add myself to the CC list.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-17 18:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-23 22:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-01 20:20 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-23 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:52 -------
Confirmed, fortran front-end needs to do something similar to the C front-end
in c-common.c/c_common_get_alias_set:
/* Permit type-punning when accessing a union, provided the access
is directly through the union. For example, this code does not
permit taking the address of a union member and then storing
through it. Even the type-punning allowed here is a GCC
extension, albeit a common and useful one; the C standard says
that such accesses have implementation-defined behavior. */
for (u = t;
TREE_CODE (u) == COMPONENT_REF || TREE_CODE (u) == ARRAY_REF;
u = TREE_OPERAND (u, 0))
if (TREE_CODE (u) == COMPONENT_REF
&& TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (u, 0))) == UNION_TYPE)
return 0;
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-10-23 22:52:31
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-23 22:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-01 20:20 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-06 20:33 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-01 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 20:20 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> The code is illegal, and therefore gfortran can do anything
> it wants (including start WW III).
>
> (1) rteps is never defined, so it can't be reference in the IF
> statement.
>
> (2) Even if rteps was defined prior to the assignments of irt(1) and
> irt(2), rteps would become undefined via 14.7.6(1) of the standard.
>
> (3) The use of BOZ literal constants here is nonstandard although
> gfortran may permit its use in this manner (I haven't checked).
Using equivalences this way is a common extension, and we actually use this in
a number of testcases ourselves, so if we decided to start WWIII in this case,
we probably wouldn't live much longer than our testsuite runs take.
--
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=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-01 20:20 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-06 20:33 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-06 20:56 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/24406] " tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-06 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 20:33 -------
Note that http://www.netlib.org/blas/d1mach.f has code
INTEGER SMALL(2)
INTEGER LARGE(2)
INTEGER RIGHT(2)
INTEGER DIVER(2)
INTEGER LOG10(2)
INTEGER SC, CRAY1(38), J
COMMON /D9MACH/ CRAY1
SAVE SMALL, LARGE, RIGHT, DIVER, LOG10, SC
DOUBLE PRECISION DMACH(5)
EQUIVALENCE (DMACH(1),SMALL(1))
EQUIVALENCE (DMACH(2),LARGE(1))
EQUIVALENCE (DMACH(3),RIGHT(1))
EQUIVALENCE (DMACH(4),DIVER(1))
EQUIVALENCE (DMACH(5),LOG10(1))
...
IF (SC .NE. 987) THEN
DMACH(1) = 1.D13
IF ( SMALL(1) .EQ. 1117925532
* .AND. SMALL(2) .EQ. -448790528) THEN
* *** IEEE BIG ENDIAN ***
SMALL(1) = 1048576
SMALL(2) = 0
LARGE(1) = 2146435071
LARGE(2) = -1
RIGHT(1) = 1017118720
RIGHT(2) = 0
DIVER(1) = 1018167296
DIVER(2) = 0
LOG10(1) = 1070810131
LOG10(2) = 1352628735
So, if we don't support this extension, we will potentially break BLAS
(at least the vanilla version distributed with netlib).
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-06 20:33 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-06 20:56 ` tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-06 20:57 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-06 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 20:56 -------
Moving this to the rtl-optimization component, the final tree dump looks
correct.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|fortran |rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-06 20:56 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/24406] " tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-06 20:57 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-02-06 21:01 ` [Bug fortran/24406] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu @ 2006-02-06 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2006-02-06 20:57 -------
Subject: Re: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 08:33:39PM -0000, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> ------- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 20:33 -------
> Note that http://www.netlib.org/blas/d1mach.f has code
>
The version of blas that is bundled with lapack from netlib
does not include this routine. A grep on lapack sources
shows no nonconforming uses of equivalence.
I certainly won't object to someone hacking gfortran to do
what the programmer wants, but I think the effort could be
spent on other parts of gfortran that actually broken with
respect to the standard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-06 20:57 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
@ 2006-02-06 21:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-03 10:08 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-06 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 21:01 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Moving this to the rtl-optimization component, the final tree dump looks
> correct.
Even though the final tree dump looks correct this is a still a front-end issue
as the front-end communicates the aliasing sets to the rtl optimizers.
I am going to take it too.
--
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
Component|rtl-optimization |fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-06 21:01 ` [Bug fortran/24406] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-03 10:08 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
2006-03-06 21:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr @ 2006-03-03 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-03 10:08 -------
> Even though the final tree dump looks correct this is a still a front-end issue
> as the front-end communicates the aliasing sets to the rtl optimizers.
> I am going to take it too.
I have either missed something, the PR has fixed itself or it is not a
front-end problem. See below.
Paul
THOMASP@PC-THOMAS-P /cygdrive/d/svn/prs
$ /irun/bin/gfortran --version
GNU Fortran 95 (GCC) 4.2.0 20060301 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
THOMASP@PC-THOMAS-P /cygdrive/d/svn/prs
$ uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-5.0 PC-THOMAS-P 1.5.7(0.109/3/2) 2004-01-30 19:32 i686 unknown
unknown
Cygwin
THOMASP@PC-THOMAS-P /cygdrive/d/svn/prs
$ /irun/bin/gfortran -m32 -O3 -Wall -std=f95 -pedantic -fdump-tree-gimple pr244
06.f
THOMASP@PC-THOMAS-P /cygdrive/d/svn/prs
$ ./a
0.99 < rteps < 1.1 : rteps OK
rteps = 1.00000000000000
THOMASP@PC-THOMAS-P /cygdrive/d/svn/prs
$ cat *pr24406*le
MAIN__ ()
{
real8 D.906;
logical4 D.907;
logical4 D.908;
logical4 D.909;
logical4 D.910;
union
{
int4 irt[2];
real8 rteps;
} equiv.0;
int4 irt[2] [value-expr: equiv.0.irt];
real8 rteps [value-expr: equiv.0.rteps];
_gfortran_set_std (2, 11, 1);
equiv.0.irt[0] = 0;
equiv.0.irt[1] = 1072693248;
D.906 = equiv.0.rteps;
D.907 = D.906 > 9.89999999999999991118215802998747676610946655273e-1;
D.908 = !D.907;
if (D.908)
..........snip.............
--
paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |paul dot richard dot thomas
| |at cea dot fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-03 10:08 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
@ 2006-03-06 21:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-07 7:28 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-06 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-06 21:03 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> > Even though the final tree dump looks correct this is a still a front-end issue
> > as the front-end communicates the aliasing sets to the rtl optimizers.
> > I am going to take it too.
>
> I have either missed something, the PR has fixed itself or it is not a
> front-end problem. See below.
The symptom of this testcase passing might work but the bug is still there and
most likely cannot expose it at the tree level and it is semi hard to expose it
even on the RTL level.
Comment #5 shows what needs to be added to the Fortran front-end which I will
do sometime this week when I get some time (but note I have two papers to write
which is what is right now taking up my time).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-06 21:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-07 7:28 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
2006-03-23 1:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr @ 2006-03-07 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-07 07:28 -------
Subject: RE: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
Andrew,
Oh, I did miss something, then!
> The symptom of this testcase passing might work but the bug
> is still there and
> most likely cannot expose it at the tree level and it is semi
> hard to expose it
> even on the RTL level.
If it is hard to expose, do we care about it? Is it certain systems that are
sensistive to it.... or....?
> Comment #5 shows what needs to be added to the Fortran
> front-end which I will
> do sometime this week when I get some time (but note I have
> two papers to write
> which is what is right now taking up my time).
Me too. *sigh*
All the best
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-07 7:28 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
@ 2006-03-23 1:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-23 8:06 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-23 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 01:06 -------
Jakub posted a patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01419.html
So this is no longer mine.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
| |patches/2006-
| |03/msg01419.html
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-23 1:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-23 8:06 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
2006-03-23 14:54 ` Andrew Pinski
2006-03-23 14:54 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr @ 2006-03-23 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1630 bytes --]
------- Comment #15 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-03-23 08:06 -------
Subject: RE: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
I thought to take a look at the patch tonight; does it look OK to you?
Paul
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org]
> Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2006 02:06
> À : THOMAS Paul Richard 169137
> Objet : [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with
> optimization -O2
>
>
>
>
> ------- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2006-03-23 01:06 -------
> Jakub posted a patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01419.html
>
> So this is no longer mine.
>
>
> --
>
> pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned
> at gcc dot gnu
> |org |dot org
> URL|
> |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
> | |patches/2006-
> | |03/msg01419.html
> Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
> Keywords| |patch
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-23 8:06 ` paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr
@ 2006-03-23 14:54 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2006-04-23 6:07 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-24 10:13 ` mick at nag dot co dot uk
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu @ 2006-03-23 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-23 14:54 -------
Subject: Re: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:06 AM, paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot
fr wrote:
>
> I thought to take a look at the patch tonight; does it look OK to you?
I forgot to mention, this was about the patch I was going to create
anyways.
-- Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-23 14:54 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2006-04-23 6:07 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-24 10:13 ` mick at nag dot co dot uk
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-23 6:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 06:07 -------
This has been dealt with, has it not?
I have marked it as fixed - if I am wrong, please unfix it!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/24406] EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2
2005-10-17 11:10 [Bug fortran/24406] New: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization -O2 mick at nag dot co dot uk
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-23 6:07 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-04-24 10:13 ` mick at nag dot co dot uk
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mick at nag dot co dot uk @ 2006-04-24 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from mick at nag dot co dot uk 2006-04-24 10:13 -------
Subject: Re: EQUIVALENCE broken in 32-bit code with optimization
-O2
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-23 06:07 -------
> This has been dealt with, has it not?
>
> I have marked it as fixed - if I am wrong, please unfix it!
Looks fixed to me - thanks
Mick
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24406
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread