[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-04 01:19 -------
Hmm, I might take a look at this bug as I found it independently while
compiling some other fortran code.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-01-09 22:33 -------
Here is a testcase which fails currently because of this bug:
   program stuff
     integer :: i_do
     integer :: i(100001) = (/ (i_do, i_do=1,100001) /)
     write (*,*) i
   end program stuff

-----
The limit was rose but we should be able to do better.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-01-10 00:03 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> The limit was rose but we should be able to do better.

Indeed.  But the problem is not trivial.  For a case like above, where the
array is a variable, we can translate it to

(program|function|subroutine) stuff
   integer :: i_do
   integer :: i(100001)
   logical, save :: _i_initialized = .FALSE.

   if (.not._i_initialized) then
         i = (/ (i_do, i_do=1,100001) /)
         _i_initialized = .TRUE.
   end if

   write (*,*) i
end (program|function|subroutine) stuff

(The _i_initialized variable is not needed in a main program, but it is in a
procedure.) This far it isn't a huge problem, but when 'i' is a PARAMETER it
gets more complicated. PARAMETERs are meant to be compile time constants. Let's
say we have e.g.

subroutine stuff
   integer :: i_do
   integer, parameter :: i(100001) = <whatever>
   real(kind=i(1975)) :: a

   ...

end subroutine stuff

I can't at the moment think of a situation where we would need the entire array
at the stage of compilation, but at least we need to be able to access
individual elements.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[bdtaylo1 at uiuc dot edu]

------- Comment #7 from bdtaylo1 at uiuc dot edu  2007-01-02 21:47 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> (The _i_initialized variable is not needed in a main program, but it is in a
> procedure.) This far it isn't a huge problem, but when 'i' is a PARAMETER it
> gets more complicated. PARAMETERs are meant to be compile time constants. Let's
> say we have e.g.
> 
> subroutine stuff
>    integer :: i_do
>    integer, parameter :: i(100001) = <whatever>
>    real(kind=i(1975)) :: a
> 
>    ...
> 
> end subroutine stuff

> 

This code is illegal - the kind specifier of a variable must be a scalar
integer value.  That should eliminate at least this need for compile-time
evaluation of parameter arrays.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-09 04:02 -------
Apparently the magic limit here is 65535, not 100000 as stated previously. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-06 14:09 -------
There's no related bug field, but it's worth mentioning that PR20923 and this
should probably be attacked at the same time.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #10 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2007-10-29 14:59 -------
Since this is the oldest F95-only bug in gfortran, I had a look if it still
exists. I'm not quite sure it does (at in the same form).

This

INTEGER, PARAMETER :: N=100000
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: I(N)=(/(MOD(K,2),K=1,N)/)
END

now compiles. However:

INTEGER, PARAMETER :: N=100000
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: I(N)=(/(MOD(K,2),K=1,N)/)
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: M(N)=I(N:1:-1)
END

causes an ICE


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-26 04:50 -------
I have been studying this more in some debug sessions.  We actually
successfully match the iterator multiple times.  However, by the time we get
through several attempted matchings, I think we get left with the last one
which is NULL.  There is an attempt to match multiple iterators, I presume for
each dimension of the array and these are kept in a linked list.  I suspect the
handling of this list is what is messed up.

I will have to keep digging at this a bit before I can say anything with any
certainty,  :)


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2006-02-05 20:01:45         |2007-11-26 04:50:29
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-26 06:28 -------
OK, tracing this farther, the correct iterator makes it to translation at
gfc_conv_array_initializer.  Here we simply have not implemented code to handle
it and we have this:

          if (c->iterator)
            {
              /* Problems occur when we get something like
                 integer :: a(lots) = (/(i, i=1,lots)/)  */
              /* TODO: Unexpanded array initializers.  */
              internal_error
                ("Possible frontend bug: array constructor not expanded");
            }
So I keep at it.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-26 06:52 -------
Food for thought:

I wonder if this is best solved by creating a general purpose iterator function
that we call at run time whenever needed.  A function for each Basic Type. 
Seems this would be fine for initializing arrays.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-08 19:04 -------
This may be fixable employing gfc_trans_assignment at the right place similar
to the fix Paul used in PR34438.  I have not time to chase this. Un-assigning.


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #15 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2008-01-29 06:31 -------
the comment #10 test case is still broken, and reaching its 3rd anniversary
soon. Just a back trace to the segfault:

1347              cons = cons->next;
(gdb) bt
#0  0x0000000000422cda in find_array_section (expr=0xf740f0, ref=0xf74c00) at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c:1347
#1  0x00000000004233d4 in simplify_const_ref (p=0xf740f0) at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c:1431
#2  0x0000000000423c1d in gfc_simplify_expr (p=0xf740f0, type=0) at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c:1666
#3  0x0000000000423f0a in simplify_parameter_variable (p=0xf73d00, type=0) at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c:1533
#4  0x000000000042508a in gfc_match_init_expr (result=0x7fff62ec25e0) at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c:2328
#5  0x000000000041b440 in gfc_match_data_decl () at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/decl.c:1743
#6  0x000000000045097a in match_word (str=0x2aea48083980 "", subr=0x41a910
<gfc_match_data_decl>, old_locus=0x7fff62ec2660)
    at /data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:64
#7  0x0000000000450f8e in decode_statement () at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:280
#8  0x0000000000452045 in next_statement () at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:652
#9  0x0000000000453444 in parse_spec (st=ST_DATA_DECL) at
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c:2163


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[Jerry_V_DeLisle at rl dot gov]

------- Comment #16 from Jerry_V_DeLisle at rl dot gov  2008-01-29 15:29 -------
The segfault here is the same segfault I reported in 34828 yesterday.  I have a
patch all ready for that part.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-30 05:06 -------
Regarding the segfault, it is similar to pr34828, but not the same place. 
Apparently we do not traverse the constructors very well.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-01 04:43 -------
With this patch:

@@ -1341,7 +1345,7 @@ find_array_section (gfc_expr *expr, gfc_
          cons = base;
        }

-      while (mpz_cmp (ptr, index) > 0)
+      while (mpz_cmp (ptr, index) > 0 && cons && cons->next)
        {
          mpz_add_ui (index, index, one);
          cons = cons->next;

The ICE for the second case on comment 10 goes away.  However, compile time is
very long as N increases:

  N = 1000,   .113 secs
      5000,   .702
     10000,  5.627
     12000, 11.091
     15000, 21.500
     20000, 42.228
     25000, 66.600

For N=100000 After several minutes we get the error message:

pr19925-10.f90:9.36:

INTEGER, PARAMETER :: M(N)=I(N:1:-1)
                                   1
Error: Initialization expression didn't reduce (1)

The ICE for this example is not related to the original problem in this PR.
Using the case of N = 5000, the printed results fo the array I, and m agree
with ifort and sun f95.  I am going to break this out as a separate PR and
submit this patch as a fix.  The failure to reduce, I am guessing is a
different problem.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-01 13:39 -------
> The ICE for the second case on comment 10 goes away.  However, compile time is
> very long as N increases:

I played around (w/o your patch) with several compilers and gfortran does not
do too bad (all compilers with N=15000 and -O0): gfortran: 10.45s, ifort:
10.43, g95: 34.73s. However, it can be much faster: openf95 0.11s; NAG f95
0.12s. sunf95 0.2s.


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #20 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-02-01 15:31 -------
With the patch in comment #18, on a Core2Duo 2.16Ghz I get:

    5000      0.54   secs
  10000      1.82
  20000      6.74
  40000    36.5
  60000  206
  65535  258
  65536     68         <--   Error: Initialization expression didn't reduce (1)
  80000  149                                            Ditto
100000  281                                            Ditto

So the threshold seems to be 2**16. While the timings in comment #18 seem more
or less cubic in n, on the Core2duo, they start more or less quadratic in n up
to 20000, then grow up much faster with n, as if they were the addition of one
quadratic behavior and one cubic (or faster) with prefactors depending on the
processor.

Note that the patch in #18, is not needed below some value of n: n=10000 pass
on unpatched ppc.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu]

------- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu  2008-02-01 16:04 -------
Subject: Re:  Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:31:49PM -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> 
> With the patch in comment #18, on a Core2Duo 2.16Ghz I get:
> 
>     5000      0.54   secs
>   10000      1.82
>   20000      6.74
>   40000    36.5
>   60000  206
>   65535  258
>   65536     68         <--   Error: Initialization expression didn't reduce (1)
>   80000  149                                            Ditto
> 100000  281                                            Ditto
> 
> So the threshold seems to be 2**16.

'grep ChangeLog-2005 6553'.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #22 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-02-01 16:41 -------
For large values of n, most of the time is spent in gfc_append_constructor,
starting from 5% and up to 92%.  Most of the remaining time is spent in
find_array_section, starting from 75% down to 2.5%.
Although I did not follow closely the algorithm, I got it is basically
quadratic (for an intrinsically linear problem). Also, each time
gfc_get_constructor is called, there is a call to "gfc_getmem
(sizeof(gfc_constructor))".


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-02-01 16:58 -------
On ppc G5 1.8Ghz, I get an almost perfect quadratic behavior:

10000    18 secs
20000    72
40000  290
60000  655
65535  778


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #24 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-02 02:05 -------
Reply to comment #21.  I am aware of the 65535 limit.  At least this minor
patch gets rid of a segfault, and handling the large array constructors by
building the array at run time is obviously not fixed yet.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #25 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-02-02 11:09 -------
>From comment #24:

> ... handling the large array constructors by building the array at run time is obviously not fixed yet.

This can be done for

INTEGER, PARAMETER :: N=65535
INTEGER :: I(N)=(/(MOD(K,2),K=1,N)/)
INTEGER :: M(N)=(/(MOD(K,2),K=N,1,-1)/)
print *, M(N)

but not when I and M are PARAMETERs: if I am not mistaken PARAMETER defines
constants for the compiler, hence cannot be deferred to run time.  Note that
the above code compiles in few seconds while it takes several hundred seconds
with PARAMETER.

A short term solution could be to improve the error message when the 65535
limit is reached: "Initialization expression didn't reduce" does not point
clearly to this limit. An error (if correct?) such that "Array constructors
cannot have more than 65535 elements" will give a better diagnostic of what's
going wrong.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu]

------- Comment #26 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu  2008-02-02 16:38 -------
Subject: Re:  Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 11:09:36AM -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> 
> A short term solution could be to improve the error message when the 65535
> limit is reached: "Initialization expression didn't reduce" does not point
> clearly to this limit. An error (if correct?) such that "Array constructors
> cannot have more than 65535 elements" will give a better diagnostic of what's
> going wrong.
> 

65535 was arbitrarily chosen by me.  This value allowed the
fmlib package to compile and run.  65535 should actually be
spelled as 100 (or maybe even smaller).  Short term solutions
have the uncanny nature of becoming long term bandaids.
See PR 19925 for an example.

Erik suggested in comment #6 one possible solution to the
problem.  In the mailing list or IRC, Paul Brook suggested
that a CTOR/DTOR methods should be considered.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[linuxl4 at sohu dot com]

------- Comment #27 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com  2008-09-07 08:25 -------
somebody fix it please.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu]

------- Comment #28 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu  2008-09-07 16:33 -------
Subject: Re:  Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 08:25:54AM -0000, linuxl4 at sohu dot com wrote:
> 
> somebody fix it please.
> 

If it were easy to fix, someone would have done this already.
Please read the audit trail.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #29 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-10-11 10:31 -------
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:20:29 +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg01415.html):

> It looks good to me - I'm just out of the door for the weekend (for
> once!) - I'll attend to it tomorrow night if nobody beats me to it.

If I am not mistaken nothing happened since then.  Could the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg01410.html be committed?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #30 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-01 16:43 -------
Subject: Bug 19925

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Nov  1 16:42:31 2008
New Revision: 141518

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141518
Log:
2008-11-01  Steven G. Kargl  <kargls@comcast.net>

        PR fortran/19925
        * trans-array.c (gfc_trans_array_constructor_value): Fix comment.
        (gfc_conv_array_initializer): Convert internal_error() to
gfc_error_now.
        * array.c: Remove GFC_MAX_AC_EXPAND macro.
        (gfc_expand_constructor): Use gfc_option.flag_max_array_constructor.
        * gfortran.h (gfc_option): Add flag_max_array_constructor member.
        * lang.opt: Add -fmax-array-constructor option.
        * expr.c (gfc_match_init_expr): Fix error message to mention new
option.
        * invoke.texi: Document new option.
        * options.c (gfc_init_options): Set default value for new option.
        (gfc_handle_option): Deal with commandline.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/array.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/invoke.texi
    trunk/gcc/fortran/lang.opt
    trunk/gcc/fortran/options.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #31 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-01 17:02 -------
Subject: Bug 19925

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Nov  1 17:00:49 2008
New Revision: 141519

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141519
Log:
2008-11-01  Steven G. Kargl  <kargls@comcast.net>

        PR fortran/19925
        * gfortran.dg/initialization_20.f90: New test.
        * gfortran.dg/initialization_21.f90: Ditto.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_20.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_21.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #32 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-01 17:07 -------
Finally, I hope.  :)


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[erik dot edelmann at iki dot fi]

------- Additional Comments From erik dot edelmann at iki dot fi  2005-07-28 11:50 -------
This bug has been briefly discussed on the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-06/msg00485.html

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-14 20:58 -------
*** Bug 20925 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925

[Bug fortran/19925] Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-12 16:40 -------
Confirmed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
           Keywords|                            |ice-on-valid-code
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-02-12 16:40:19
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925