[Bug middle-end/32046] New: [Regression 4.3] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[Bug middle-end/32046] New: [Regression 4.3] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

The following examples run fine with -O1, but with -O2 they gfortran library
gives an error at run time.

$ gfortran -O gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90
$ ./a.out
$ gfortran -O2 gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90
$ ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory.

Analogously for gfortran.dg/result_in_spec_1.f90


-- 
           Summary: [Regression 4.3] wrong code with -O2 for
                    gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug middle-end/32046] [Regression 4.3] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-22 19:00 -------
Missed to write that the regression occured beween 2007-05-14-r124708 (working)
and 2007-05-15-r124736 (failing).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [Regression 4.3] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-22 19:04 -------
I bet this is like the other "Attempt to allocate a negative amount of memory"
and really a front-end issue with respect of mismatch types.  Can you attach
-fdump-tree-original dump?


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [Regression 4.3] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-22 19:14 -------
Created an attachment (id=13603)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13603&action=view)
result_in_spec_1.f90.003t.original

As requested: The -fdump-tree-original of result_in_spec_1.f90.
It is time that there is a GCC-compile-time check for tree missmatches.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [Regression 4.3] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-22 19:45 -------
FX, it seems that your patch contains mismatch types, which cause the wrong
code with -O2. At least if I revert your allocate patch, it no longer fails.

r124721 | fxcoudert | 2007-05-14 21:33:57 +0200 (Mon, 14 May 2007) | 39 lines
       PR fortran/30723


-- 

burnus 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=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-22 19:49 -------
    D.1477 = (SAVE_EXPR <(<unnamed-unsigned:64>) (MAX_EXPR <D.1475, 0> + -1) +
1>) * 4;

    int8 D.1477;

We have signed = unsigned * unknown ;  I say unknown because I don't know off
the top of my head if 4 is signed or not (I think we should be printing out u
for unsigned INTEGER_CSTs).

(In reply to comment #4)
> FX, it seems that your patch contains mismatch types, which cause the wrong
> code with -O2. At least if I revert your allocate patch, it no longer fails.

Actually FX's patch just exposed the latent bug (as shown by the other bug, I
forgot the PR number).


-- 

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         |2007-05-22 19:49:26
               date|                            |
            Summary|[Regression 4.3] wrong code |[4.3 Regression] wrong code
                   |with -O2 for                |with -O2 for
                   |gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90|gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90
                   |& result_in_spec_1.f90      |& result_in_spec_1.f90
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-22 20:33 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
>     D.1477 = (SAVE_EXPR <(<unnamed-unsigned:64>) (MAX_EXPR <D.1475, 0> + -1) +
> 1>) * 4;

Yup, the following patch fixes it. I think there might be other occurences of
such a problem (basically, every time we use TYPE_SIZE_UNIT to create an array
size or offset).



Index: trans-array.c
===================================================================
--- trans-array.c       (revision 124858)
+++ trans-array.c       (working copy)
@@ -687,7 +687,8 @@ gfc_trans_create_temp_array (stmtblock_t

       nelem = size;
       size = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, gfc_array_index_type, size,
-                         TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (gfc_get_element_type (type)));
+                         fold_convert (gfc_array_index_type,
+                                       TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (gfc_get_element_type
(type))));
     }
   else
     {


-- 

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|2007-05-22 19:49:26         |2007-05-22 20:33:00
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[patchapp at dberlin dot org]

------- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org  2007-05-22 22:38 -------
Subject: Bug number PR32046

A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01499.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-23 09:25 -------
Subject: Bug 32046

Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed May 23 08:25:05 2007
New Revision: 124985

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124985
Log:
        PR fortran/32046
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_zero_assign): Convert the result of
        TYPE_SIZE_UNIT into a signed type.
        (gfc_trans_array_copy):  Likewise.
        (gfc_trans_array_constructor_copy): Likewise.
        * trans-array.c (gfc_trans_create_temp_array): Likewise.
        (gfc_grow_array): Likewise.
        (gfc_array_init_size): Likewise.
        (gfc_duplicate_allocatable): Likewise.
        * trans-stmt.c (allocate_temp_for_forall_nest_1): Likewise.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-23 09:34 -------
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=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[patchapp at dberlin dot org]

------- Comment #10 from patchapp at dberlin dot org  2007-05-23 09:44 -------
Subject: Bug number PR32046

A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01499.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[daney at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-22 04:46 -------
Subject: Bug 32046

Author: daney
Date: Fri Jun 22 04:46:08 2007
New Revision: 125941

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125941
Log:
        PR target/32046
        * config/mips/mips.md (define_constants): Rename UNSPEC_EH_RECEIVER
        to UNSPEC_NONLOCAL_GOTO_RECEIVER globally.
        (exception_receiver): Renamed to ...
        (nonlocal_goto_receiver): ... this.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/config/mips/mips.md


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046

[Bug fortran/32046] [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O2 for gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90 & result_in_spec_1.f90

[daney at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-11 06:25 -------
Well obviously my commit attributed to this bug mentioned the wrong bug number.
 I wonder if I can find the proper bug...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046