[Bug fortran/35681] New: wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[Bug fortran/35681] New: wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[dick dot hendrickson at gmail dot com]

The following program prints out the wrong results when an
array with vector valued subscript is used in an expression
as the FROM argument and also used as the TO argument.
The array case gives different results from a similar
scalar DO loop.

If a different array is used in the FROM argument, the array
results are the same as the scalar results.

I'd guess that you aren't recognizing
(ILA1(NFV3))
as an expression and copying it to a temp before invoking
MVBITS.

Dick Hendrickson


      program YA0017

! gcc version 4.4.0 20080312 (experimental) [trunk revision 133139] (GCC)

      INTEGER ILA1(10)
      INTEGER ILA2(10)
      INTEGER ICA3(10), nfv3(10)
      ILA1 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
      ILA2 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
      ica3 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
      nfv3 = (/9,9,6,2,4,9,2,9,6,10/)

      DO J1 = 1,10
        CALL MVBITS(Ila1(NFV3(J1)),2,4,ILA2(J1), 3)
      ENDDO

      CALL MVBITS ((ILA1(NFV3)), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)       !fails

      print *, 'first test'
      DO J1 = 1,10
      IF (ILA1(J1) .NE. ILA2(J1))
     $ print *, 'j1 = ', j1, '  vvs = ', nfv3(j1),
     $ '  scalar =', ila2(j1), '  vector = ', ila1(j1)
      ENDDO


      ILA1 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
      ILA2 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
      ica3 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
      nfv3 = (/9,9,6,2,4,9,2,9,6,10/)

      DO J1 = 1,10
        CALL MVBITS(Ica3(NFV3(J1)),2,4,ILA2(J1), 3)
      ENDDO

      CALL MVBITS ((Ica3(NFV3)), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)      !works

      print *, 'second test'
      DO J1 = 1,10
      IF (ILA1(J1) .NE. ILA2(J1))
     $ print *, 'j1 = ', j1, '  vvs = ', nfv3(j1),
     $ '  scalar =', ila2(j1), '  vector = ', ila1(j1)
      ENDDO
      END 


-------------------------------------------------------
results
C:\g_experiments\gfortran>gfortran ya0017.f
C:\g_experiments\gfortran>a
 first test
 j1 =            4   vvs =            2   scalar =           4   vector =
    36
 j1 =            5   vvs =            4   scalar =          13   vector =
    77
 j1 =            7   vvs =            2   scalar =           7   vector =
    39
 j1 =            9   vvs =            6   scalar =           9   vector =
    41
 second test


-- 
           Summary: wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in
                    MVBITS
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dick dot hendrickson at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2008-03-24 22:13:04
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-28 15:18 -------
Reduced testcase:

  integer, dimension(10) :: ILA1 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
  call mvbits ((ILA1((/9,9,6,2,4,9,2,9,6,10/))), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)
  write (*,'(10(I3))') ila1
  end 

output is:
   17 18 11 36 77 22 39 16 41 18
while it should be:
   17 18 11  4 13 22  7 16  9 18


I don't know if it related, but the following compiles and segfault at runtime:

  integer, dimension(10) :: ILA1 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
  call mvbits ((ILA1((/9/))), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)
  write (*,'(10(I3))') ila1
  end 

while it gives a strange error message with -fbounds-check:

At line 2 of file a.f90
Fortran runtime error: Array reference out of bounds for array 'ila1', upper
bound of dimension 1  exceeded (68 > 10)


-- 

fxcoudert 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=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-03-28 15:29 -------
For the second test in comment #1, ifort gives:

fortcom: Error: pr35681_2.f90, line 2: The shapes of the arguments do not
conform.   [MVBITS]
  call mvbits ((ILA1((/9/))), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)
------------------------------------^


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[dick dot hendrickson at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #3 from dick dot hendrickson at gmail dot com  2008-03-28 15:48 -------
Subject: Re:  wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

Right, in case you haven't found it yet, the first paragraph of
12.7.3, page 214, says effectively
that all of the arguments must be conformable with the TO argument.  I
was mildly amused
that a significant restriction on MVBITS came in the paragraph before
the one that
explicitly discusses MVBITS.

Dick Hendrickson

On 28 Mar 2008 15:29:05 -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>  ------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-03-28 15:29 -------
>  For the second test in comment #1, ifort gives:
>
>  fortcom: Error: pr35681_2.f90, line 2: The shapes of the arguments do not
>  conform.   [MVBITS]
>
>   call mvbits ((ILA1((/9/))), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)
>  ------------------------------------^
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
>
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681
>
>  ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
>  You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-03-28 16:22 -------
It looks like a missing temporary:

  integer, dimension(10) :: ILA1 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/), ILA2, ILA3
  ILA3 = (/9,9,6,2,4,9,2,9,6,10/)
  print '(10(I3))', ILA1((/9,9,6,2,4,9,2,9,6,10/))
  ILA2 = ILA1
  do i = 1, 10
     call mvbits (ila2(ila3(i)), 2, 4, ila2(i), 3)
  end do
  write (*,'(10(I3))') ila2
  ILA2 = ILA1
  call mvbits ((ILA1((/9,9,6,2,4,9,2,9,6,10/))), 2, 4, ILA2, 3)
  write (*,'(10(I3))') ila2
  call mvbits ((ILA1((/9,9,6,2,4,9,2,9,6,10/))), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)
  write (*,'(10(I3))') ila1
  if (any(ila1 /= ila2)) call abort()
  end 

yields

  9  9  6  2  4  9  2  9  6 10
 17 18 11 36 77 22 39 16 41 18
 17 18 11  4 13 22  7 16  9 18
 17 18 11 36 77 22 39 16 41 18
Abort


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-14 16:20 -------
I will look at this and try to work it out, taking it for now.


-- 

domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2008-03-24 22:13:04         |2008-10-14 16:20:44
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-16 16:32 -------
Fixed the accepts-invalid mentioned in comment #1 (patch posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-10/msg00145.html) on trunk, but the main
problem here is still there, I'll start to work on it directly now.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-18 08:27 -------
I'm having some difficulties seeing what the problem really is...  My
understanding of elemental procedures so far is that they should be more or
less equivalent to looping over the arguments and then performing them as the
standard seems to enforce the order and such is not important...  What do I
miss?  Is the following program supposed to swap the elements in a and b?

PROGRAM main
  IMPLICIT NONE
  INTEGER :: a(2)

  a = (/ 1, 2 /)
  CALL copy (a((/ 2, 1 /)), a)
  PRINT *, a

  STOP

CONTAINS

  ELEMENTAL SUBROUTINE copy (a, b)
    IMPLICIT NONE
    INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: a
    INTEGER, INTENT(OUT) :: b

    b = a
  END SUBROUTINE copy

END PROGRAM main

This prints "2 2" at the moment, which seems quite reasonable to me; or does
the standard enforce it should print "2 1"?  If so, where can I find the
details about this (i.e. need temporaries only for INTENT(IN) arguments that
are TARGETS or also passed to INTENT(*OUT) parameters, or also for
INTENT(INOUT) ones...)?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-10-18 09:31 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> This prints "2 2" at the moment, which seems quite reasonable to me; or does
> the standard enforce it should print "2 1"?

ifort returns "2 2" and g95 "2 1".  As far as I understand the scalarization of
elemental procedures, I think g95 is right. Considering the following
modification of the code:

PROGRAM main
  IMPLICIT NONE
  INTEGER :: i, a(2), b(2)

  a = (/ 1, 2 /)
  b = (/ 2, 1 /)
  CALL copy (a((/ 2, 1 /)), a)
  PRINT *, a
  a = (/ 1, 2 /)
  do i = 1, 2
     CALL copy (a(b(i)), a(i))
  end do
  PRINT *, a
  a = (/ 1, 2 /)
  do i = 2, 1, -1
     CALL copy (a(b(i)), a(i))
  end do
  PRINT *, a

  STOP

CONTAINS

  ELEMENTAL SUBROUTINE copy (a, b)
    IMPLICIT NONE
    INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: a
    INTEGER, INTENT(OUT) :: b

    b = a
  END SUBROUTINE copy

END PROGRAM main

which gives:

           2           1
           2           2
           2           2
           1           1

i.e., a result depending on the order of the scalar do loop, my understanding
is that a temporary is required.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-18 10:20 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> ifort returns "2 2" and g95 "2 1".  As far as I understand the scalarization
> of elemental procedures, I think g95 is right.

sunf95, openf95, NAG f95 and pathscale's pathf95 also return 2 1; Portland
group's pgf95 has "2 2".

I think we need an array temporary if an a variable appears twice in an
argument list, if one of these arguments has an array section (except for
whole-array sections "(:)").

Special care might be necessary: Pointers as actual argument and  elemental
functions of the type  array = func(array(section)), I'm not sure and need to
re-read the standard.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-18 11:36 -------
Somehow reading the bug report first before replying helps ... Ignore the crap
I just wrote.

Dick's (comment 0)
      CALL MVBITS ((ILA1(NFV3)), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)       !fails
is valid as the first and the fourth argument don't refer to the same variable
- the first argument is an expression for which a temporary needs to be
created.

Ditto for FX's (comment 1)
  call mvbits ((ILA1((/9/))), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)

However, comment 7's
  CALL copy (a((/ 2, 1 /)), a)
is wrong as one passes twice the same variable - once as array section and once
as whole array. There an outer ( ... ) is missing which is needed to makes this
an expression.

For a lengthy answer including where to find it in the standard, see:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/160867d13fd90927/


Seemingly somewhere  (x)  is simplified to x (= EXPR_VARIABLE) and thus no
temporary is created - or something like that. For non-elemental procedures
this was fixed in gfortran 4.3; before foo((x),x) was optimized to foo((x),x).

One can probably ignore all examples after comment 1 and start with looking why
no temporary is created for comment 1 - afterwards one needs to check comment
0.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[dick dot hendrickson at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #11 from dick dot hendrickson at gmail dot com  2008-10-18 17:02 -------
Subject: Re:  wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

Also, MVBITS is a special case.  See the top of page 215 in the F95
standard.  The FROM
and TO arguments are allowed to be the same variable.  The other thing
about overlapping
variables is (2) on page 205, which is a long way from the section
header and is often
overlooked (at least I missed it once).

I'm off to help paint my granddaughter's bedroom, so I can't think
much about this.

Somewhere, along time ago, there was a smallish test program of the form
            subroutine xxx(a,b)
            b = b+1
            print *, a,b
            end
and then a ton of call statements of the forms

           a = 99
           call xxx ((a),a)
           or
           call xxx( 1*a,a)
           or
           call xxx(a+0, a)
...
which might be a good thing to invent as a way to check that you
aren't oversimplifing
actual expressions.

Dick Hendrickson


On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:36 AM, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-18 11:36 -------
> Somehow reading the bug report first before replying helps ... Ignore the crap
> I just wrote.
>
> Dick's (comment 0)
>      CALL MVBITS ((ILA1(NFV3)), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)       !fails
> is valid as the first and the fourth argument don't refer to the same variable
> - the first argument is an expression for which a temporary needs to be
> created.
>
> Ditto for FX's (comment 1)
>  call mvbits ((ILA1((/9/))), 2, 4, ILA1, 3)
>
> However, comment 7's
>  CALL copy (a((/ 2, 1 /)), a)
> is wrong as one passes twice the same variable - once as array section and once
> as whole array. There an outer ( ... ) is missing which is needed to makes this
> an expression.
>
> For a lengthy answer including where to find it in the standard, see:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/160867d13fd90927/
>
>
> Seemingly somewhere  (x)  is simplified to x (= EXPR_VARIABLE) and thus no
> temporary is created - or something like that. For non-elemental procedures
> this was fixed in gfortran 4.3; before foo((x),x) was optimized to foo((x),x).
>
> One can probably ignore all examples after comment 1 and start with looking why
> no temporary is created for comment 1 - afterwards one needs to check comment
> 0.
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-19 14:34 -------
To put the arguments succinctly, this is a double problem (apart from the
conformity issue):

(i) The original test case is losing the EXPR_PARENTHESES for some reason.  ie.
there is no question that in this case a temporary should be made for the
'FROM' actual argument.

(ii) 12.7.3    Elemental subroutine actual arguments
"An elemental subroutine is one that has only scalar dummy arguments, but may
have array actual arguments. In a reference to an elemental subroutine, either
all actual arguments shall be scalar, or all actual arguments associated with
INTENT (OUT) and INTENT (INOUT) dummy arguments shall be arrays of the same
shape and the remaining actual arguments shall be conformable with them. In the
case that the actual arguments associated with INTENT (OUT) and INTENT (INOUT)
dummy arguments are arrays, the values of the elements, if any, of the results
are the same as would be obtained if the subroutine had been applied
separately, in any order, to corresponding elements of each array actual
argument. In a reference to the intrinsic subroutine MVBITS, the actual
arguments corresponding to the TO and FROM dummy arguments may be the same
variable. Apart from this, the actual arguments in a reference to an elemental
subroutine must satisfy the restrictions of 12.4.1.6."

Since the 'TO' and 'FROM' arguments can alias in MVBITS and the results must be
order independent, the test case should also create a temporary, even without
enclosing parentheses.  For the reason described before
trans-stmt.c(gfc_conv_elemental_dependencies) this should be the 'TO' variable
and should be done on the basis of a dependency between 'TO' and 'FROM' to be
safe.

The implementation is complicated by the resolved_sym for MVBITS not carrying
formal arguments so that gfc_conv_elemental_dependencies does nothing, even if
it is "spoon-fed" the call.

Paul puts thinking hat on!


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-19 14:46 -------
Paul, thanks for stepping into the party :)

My plan for working on this is to look at the first part of the problem for now
(the lost parentheses, this is a general ELEMENTAL problem, as my (invalid)
test from comment #7 also fails for adding parentheses around the first
argument).  I hope this can be fixed quite straight forward if I find the
problem.

After this, we can look at the MVBITS specific part.  I think this is a
reasonable way to work on this problem; what do you think?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-19 16:16 -------
Actually, the parentheses aren't lost and *do* get honoured, but the temporary
is only inside the scalarization loop and thus not the full array temporary we
want; the problem is that the actual argument expressions (and thus the
EXPR_OP) gets translated inside gfc_conv_function_call which is only inside the
scalarization loop for ELEMENTAL calls and thus only a scalar temporary.

A possible approach for solving this problem in a way that looks more or less
clean to me would be to translate call expression arguments in gfc_trans_call
before gfc_conv_function_call, i.e. before even generating the ELEMENTAL
scalarization loop.  This would however of course be a somewhat intrusive patch
and I want to make sure you agree with this plan.  Or is there some other way
I'm not aware of?  I'm just thinking that moving this expression translation
that would take care of parentheses and friends would not involve any "new"
code but rather reorganize the existing one and thus utilize what's already
there to its best.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-01 13:27 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: domob
Date: Sat Nov  1 13:26:19 2008
New Revision: 141516

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141516
Log:
2008-11-01  Daniel Kraft  <d@domob.eu>

        PR fortran/35681
        * gfortran.h (struct gfc_code): New field `resolved_isym'.
        * trans.h (gfc_build_memcpy_call): Made public.
        * trans-array.h (gfc_trans_create_temp_array): New argument `initial'.
        * intrinsic.c (gfc_intrinsic_sub_interface): Set resolved_isym.
        * iresolve.c (create_formal_for_intents): New helper method.
        (gfc_resolve_mvbits): Put dummy formal arglist on resolved_sym.
        * resolve.c (resolve_call): Initialize resolved_isym to NULL.
        * trans-array.c (gfc_trans_allocate_array_storage): New argument
        `initial' to allow initializing the allocated storage to some initial
        value copied from another array.
        (gfc_trans_create_temp_array): Allow initialization of the temporary
        with a copy of some other array by using the new extension.
        (gfc_trans_array_constructor): Pass NULL_TREE for initial argument.
        (gfc_conv_loop_setup): Ditto.
        * trans-intrinsic.c (gfc_conv_intrinsic_array_transfer): Ditto.
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_function_call): Ditto.
        (gfc_build_memcpy_call): Made public.
        * trans-stmt.c (gfc_conv_elemental_dependencies): Initialize created
        temporary for INTENT(INOUT) arguments to the value of the mirrored
        array and clean up the temporary as very last intructions in the
created
        block.
        * trans.c (gfc_trans_code): For EXEC_CALL, see if we have a MVBITS call
        and enable elemental dependency checking if we have.

2008-11-01  Daniel Kraft  <d@domob.eu>

        PR fortran/35681
        * gfortran.dg/mvbits_4.f90: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/mvbits_4.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/iresolve.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans.h
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-01 13:37 -------
This commit implements correct dependency and temporary handling if the
arguments to MVBITS are *not* expressions; thus it does not yet fix the
original test, although it fixes it if the parentheses are taken off the first
argument.  This other problem with ELEMENTAL scalarization will be part 2...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-13 17:16 -------
Unassigning myself.  Mikael will probably want to take the missing part on with
his pending patch :)


-- 

domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-14 13:01 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> Unassigning myself.  Mikael will probably want to take the missing part on with
> his pending patch :)
> 
Regressions are making my life tough right now, but I will succeed in the end.
:)
Taking it.


-- 

mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |mikael at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2008-10-14 16:20:44         |2008-11-14 13:01:53
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-16 22:46 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: mikael
Date: Sun Nov 16 22:45:10 2008
New Revision: 141931

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141931
Log:
2008-11-16  Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * dependency.c (gfc_check_argument_var_dependency): Add
        elemental check flag. Issue a warning if we find a dependency
        but don't generate a temporary. Add the case of an elemental
        function call as actual argument to an elemental procedure.
        Add the case of an operator expression as actual argument
        to an elemental procedure.
        (gfc_check_argument_dependency): Add elemental check flag.
        Update calls to gfc_check_argument_var_dependency.
        (gfc_check_fncall_dependency): Add elemental check flag.
        Update call to gfc_check_argument_dependency.
        * trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_call): Make call to
        gfc_conv_elemental_dependency unconditional, but with a flag
        whether we should check dependencies between variables.
        (gfc_conv_elemental_dependency): Add elemental check flag.
        Update call to gfc_check_fncall_dependency.
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_arrayfunc_assign): Update call to
        gfc_check_fncall_dependency.
        * resolve.c (find_noncopying_intrinsics): Update call to
        gfc_check_fncall_dependency.
        * dependency.h (enum gfc_dep_check): New enum.
        (gfc_check_fncall_dependency): Update prototype.

2008-11-16  Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90: New test.


Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/dependency.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-23 19:07 -------
Mikael, Daniel: Have I missed something or is everything in this PR fixed in
4.4 ("trunk") and only some 4.3 back porting is needed?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #21 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-24 12:15 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: mikael
Date: Mon Nov 24 12:13:59 2008
New Revision: 142154

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142154
Log:
2008-11-24  Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * dependency.c (gfc_check_argument_var_dependency): Add
        elemental check flag. Issue a warning if we find a dependency
        but don't generate a temporary. Add the case of an elemental
        function call as actual argument to an elemental procedure.
        Add the case of an operator expression as actual argument
        to an elemental procedure.
        (gfc_check_argument_dependency): Add elemental check flag.
        Update calls to gfc_check_argument_var_dependency.
        (gfc_check_fncall_dependency): Add elemental check flag.
        Update call to gfc_check_argument_dependency.
        * trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_call): Make call to
        gfc_conv_elemental_dependency unconditional, but with a flag
        whether we should check dependencies between variables.
        (gfc_conv_elemental_dependency): Add elemental check flag.
        Update call to gfc_check_fncall_dependency.
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_arrayfunc_assign): Update call to
        gfc_check_fncall_dependency.
        * resolve.c (find_noncopying_intrinsics): Update call to
        gfc_check_fncall_dependency.
        * dependency.h (enum gfc_dep_check): New enum.
        (gfc_check_fncall_dependency): Update prototype.

2008-11-24  Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90: New test.


Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/dependency.h
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #22 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-24 12:25 -------
Argh!!
elemental_dependency_1.f90 was not committed.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #23 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-24 12:38 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: mikael
Date: Mon Nov 24 12:37:25 2008
New Revision: 142155

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142155
Log:
2008-11-24  Mikael Morin <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90: Really commit it.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #24 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-24 12:48 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: mikael
Date: Mon Nov 24 12:46:57 2008
New Revision: 142156

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142156
Log:
2008-11-24  Mikael Morin  <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90: Really commit it.


Added:
   
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #25 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-24 13:10 -------
(In reply to comment #22)
> Argh!!
> elemental_dependency_1.f90 was not committed.
> 
Fixed now, sorry for the noise.


(In reply to comment #20)
> Mikael, Daniel: Have I missed something or is everything in this PR fixed in
> 4.4 ("trunk") and only some 4.3 back porting is needed?
> 
Sorry for forgetting about it. 
Yes, I think it is fixed, and I've just back-ported.
closing now.


-- 

mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #26 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-24 19:14 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 24 19:13:12 2008
New Revision: 142169

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142169
Log:
2008-11-24  Steven G. Kargl  <kargls@comcast.net>

        PR fortran/37792
        * fortran/resolve.c (resolve_fl_variable): Simplify the
        initializer if there is one.

2008-11-24  Steven G. Kargl  <kargls@comcast.net>

        PR fortran/37792
        * gfortran.dg/arithmetic_overflow_1.f90: New test.

2008-11-24  Mikael Morin  <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90: Correct strings in test.


Added:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/arithmetic_overflow_1.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
   
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #27 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-01-04 19:12 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan  4 19:12:16 2009
New Revision: 143057

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143057
Log:
2009-01-04  Mikael Morin  <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * ChangeLog-2008: Fix function name.

        PR fortran/38487
        * dependency.c (gfc_check_argument_var_dependency):
        Move the check for pointerness inside the if block
        so that it doesn't affect the return value.

        PR fortran/38669
        * trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_call):
        Add the dependency code after the loop bounds calculation one.

2009-01-04  Mikael Morin  <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/38669
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90: New test.
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90: New test.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog-2008
    trunk/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #28 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-01-14 20:53 -------
Subject: Bug 35681

Author: mikael
Date: Wed Jan 14 20:53:18 2009
New Revision: 143383

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143383
Log:
2009-01-14  Mikael Morin  <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/35681
        * ChangeLog: Fix function name.

        PR fortran/38487
        * dependency.c (gfc_check_argument_var_dependency):
        Move the check for pointerness inside the if block
        so that it doesn't affect the return value.

        PR fortran/38669
        * trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_call):
        Add the dependency code after the loop bounds calculation one.

2009-01-14  Mikael Morin  <mikael.morin@tele2.fr>

        PR fortran/38669
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90: New test.
        * gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90: New test.


Added:
   
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90
   
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/dependency.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681

[Bug fortran/35681] wrong result for vector subscripted array expression in MVBITS

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.4.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35681