* [Bug libgomp/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-17 14:06 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-17 17:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2007-05-17 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-17 15:06 -------
Failures look like
Fortran runtime error: Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory.
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/vla1.f90 -O2 execution test
Is this related to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00148.html
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |espindola at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug libgomp/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-17 14:06 ` [Bug libgomp/31974] " hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-17 17:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-18 23:47 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-17 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug libgomp/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-17 14:06 ` [Bug libgomp/31974] " hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-17 17:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-18 23:47 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-19 1:53 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2007-05-18 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 00:46 -------
I have verified that this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-05/msg00123.html
causes the regression. FX, can you take a look? Thanks.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug libgomp/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-18 23:47 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-19 1:53 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-19 15:13 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2007-05-19 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 02:52 -------
malloc is
void *malloc(size_t size);
and size_t is unsigned. I am not sure if checking size < 0 in Fortran is needed
or done properly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug libgomp/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 1:53 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-19 15:13 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-19 16:04 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2007-05-19 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 16:12 -------
Here is a simple testcase. It fails on Linux/x86-64 and Linux/ia64. I think
it may fail on all 64bit systems:
[hjl@gnu-26 31974]$ cat foo.f90
! { dg-do run }
call test
contains
subroutine foo (n)
integer :: n
integer :: p, q
character (len = n) :: s
character (len = n), dimension (5, 3:n) :: v
s = 'P'
forall (p = 1:5, q = 3:7, p + q .gt. 8) v(p, q) = '!'
end subroutine foo
subroutine test
call foo (7)
end subroutine test
end
[hjl@gnu-26 31974]$ make
/export/build/gnu/gcc-last/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/gfortran
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc-last/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/
-L/export/build/gnu/gcc-last/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/../x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgfortran/.libs
-static -g -o foo foo.o
./foo
Fortran runtime error: Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory.
make: *** [all] Error 2
[hjl@gnu-26 31974]$
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug libgomp/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 15:13 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-19 16:04 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-19 17:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/31974] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2007-05-19 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 17:04 -------
VRP says
D.1387_39: [-10737418225, 0]
Simplified relational D.1387_39 < 0 into D.1387_39 != 0
if (D.1387_39 != 0)
goto <bb 4>;
else
goto <bb 5> (<L37>);
<bb 4>:
_gfortran_runtime_error ("Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory.");
Is this a VRP bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 16:04 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-19 17:16 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-19 17:19 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-19 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 18:16 -------
Indeed...
$ cat u.f90
subroutine foo (n)
integer :: n
character (len = n) :: v(n)
v = ''
end subroutine foo
call foo(7)
end
$ gfortran u.f90 -O && ./a.out
$ gfortran u.f90 -O -ftree-vrp && ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory.
The tree-original output is a bit convoluted, but I think it's doing the right
thing. I'm attaching it here.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|libgomp |tree-optimization
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-05-19 18:16:20
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 17:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/31974] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-19 17:19 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-19 17:35 ` [Bug fortran/31974] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-19 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 18:19 -------
Created an attachment (id=13584)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13584&action=view)
Output of -fdump-tree-original for the testcase u.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 17:19 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-19 17:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-19 19:51 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-19 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 18:34 -------
Andrew Pinski noticed on IRC a type mismatch in the generated code, that leads
to this wrong-code. This ptach fixes it, I'm regtesting it right now.
Index: trans-array.c
===================================================================
--- trans-array.c (revision 124856)
+++ trans-array.c (working copy)
@@ -3846,7 +3846,8 @@ gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation (tree de
/* The size is the number of elements in the array, so multiply by the
size of an element to get the total size. */
tmp = TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (gfc_get_element_type (type));
- size = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type, size, tmp);
+ size = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type, size,
+ fold_convert (gfc_array_index_type, tmp));
/* Allocate memory to hold the data. */
tmp = gfc_call_malloc (&block, TREE_TYPE (decl), size);
--
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
Component|tree-optimization |fortran
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |patch, wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|2007-05-19 18:16:20 |2007-05-19 18:34:53
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 17:35 ` [Bug fortran/31974] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-19 19:51 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-19 19:52 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-19 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 20:51 -------
Subject: Bug 31974
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Sat May 19 19:51:21 2007
New Revision: 124858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124858
Log:
PR fortran/31974
* trans-array.c (gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation): Avoid
multiplication of mismatched types.
* gfortran.dg/char_allocation_1.f90: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/char_allocation_1.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 19:51 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-19 19:52 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-19 20:02 ` [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types hjl at lucon dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-19 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 20:52 -------
Fixed.
--
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=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 19:52 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-19 20:02 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-19 20:12 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2007-05-19 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 21:01 -------
Gcc 4.2 has similar issue.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
Summary|[4.3 regression]: Many |[4.2]: array allocation
|libgomp failures |multiplication of mismatched
| |types
Target Milestone|4.3.0 |4.2.1
Version|4.3.0 |4.2.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 20:02 ` [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-19 20:12 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-19 20:17 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-19 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 21:12 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Gcc 4.2 has similar issue.
It's not showing up in the ia64 testresults
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg00918.html). Is it triggered
by the testcase I committed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 20:12 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-19 20:17 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-05-19 20:21 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2007-05-19 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 21:16 -------
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > Gcc 4.2 has similar issue.
>
> It's not showing up in the ia64 testresults
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg00918.html). Is it triggered
> by the testcase I committed?
>
It is a latent bug in gcc 4.2, the same way as in gcc 4.3. We didn't notice it
before your malloc change.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 20:17 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2007-05-19 20:21 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-28 16:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-05 22:58 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-19 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 21:21 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> It is a latent bug in gcc 4.2, the same way as in gcc 4.3. We didn't notice it
> before your malloc change.
I'm not sure a latent bug can be considered for backport.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-19 20:21 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-28 16:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-05 22:58 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-28 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-28 16:17 -------
Removing the wrong-code keyword until we manage to find if it actually happens
on 4.2, or if it's just not exposed. I'm reluctant to backport the patch unless
we have a proof of it happening on 4.2 (and if it happens, it's probably not a
regression).
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |SUSPENDED
Keywords|wrong-code |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31974] [4.2]: array allocation multiplication of mismatched types
2007-05-17 14:02 [Bug libgomp/31974] New: [4.3 regression]: Many libgomp failures hjl at lucon dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-28 16:17 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-06-05 22:58 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-06-05 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-05 22:58 -------
Fixed on mainline, no evidence of a regression on 4.2.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|4.2.1 |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread