[Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs

public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* [Bug fortran/27766]  New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
@ 2006-05-24 21:46 fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2006-05-24 21:51 ` [Bug fortran/27766] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (11 more replies)
  0 siblings, 12 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-24 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

This PR is opened for tracking all bugs related to the -fbounds-check option.


-- 
           Summary: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: meta-bug
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
 BugsThisDependsOn: 19777,24401,26801,27524,27588,27765


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-24 21:51 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2006-05-27  9:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (10 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-24 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-24 21:51 -------
With gfortran mainline 20060517 (and the patch for PR 27524), here is a list of
failures recorder when the testsuite is run with -fbounds-check (command line
is make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS="-target_board=unix/-fbounds-check"):

gfortran.dg/aliasing_dummy_1.f90
gfortran.dg/cray_pointers_2.f90
gfortran.dg/pr15140.f90
gfortran.dg/pr25603.f
gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f
gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.12.1.f90
gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.30.1.f90
gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.31.1.f90
gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.31.2.f90
gfortran.dg/gomp/appendix-a/a.8.1.f90
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/assumed_size.f90
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/forall_3.f90
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/where_7.f90
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/where_8.f90


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-05-24 21:51:10
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2006-05-24 21:51 ` [Bug fortran/27766] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-27  9:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2008-04-30 20:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (9 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-27  9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-27 09:03 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS="-target_board=unix/-fbounds-check"

With mainline today and the patch for PR 19777, the list is failure is now:

gfortran.dg/cray_pointers_2.f90
gfortran.dg/pr15140.f90
gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/assumed_size.f90
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/forall_3.f90
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/where_7.f90
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/where_8.f90


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2006-05-24 21:51 ` [Bug fortran/27766] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2006-05-27  9:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-30 20:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2008-04-30 20:48 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (8 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-30 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-30 20:02 -------
Failures at the moment:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O0  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O1  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O2  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
scan-tree-dump-times original "memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
scan-tree-dump-times original "memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  scan-tree-dump-times original "memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -g  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -Os  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -Os  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ltrans-7.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times ltrans "transformed
loop" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -Os  execution test
Running /home/ig25/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/gomp.exp ...
Running /home/ig25/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1
loops" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "complicated
access pattern" 1


-- 

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=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-04-30 20:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-30 20:48 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2008-11-22 23:54 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (7 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-30 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-30 20:47 -------
(In reply to comment #3)

> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O0  scan-tree-dump-times original  "memset" 2

This is due to a false positive because "memset" in the error message
(due to the filename) matches more than two times.


-- 

tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|36091                       |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-04-30 20:48 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-22 23:54 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2008-11-23  0:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-11-22 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-22 23:52 -------
Current failures with bounds checking:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O0  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O1  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O2  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer 
scan-tree-dump-times original "memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
scan-tree-dump-times original "memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  scan-tree-dump-times original "memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -O3 -g  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90  -Os  scan-tree-dump-times original
"memset" 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90  -Os  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -Os  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times ldist "distributed:
split to 4 loops" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ltrans-7.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times ltrans "transformed
loop" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  execution
test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr37243.f  -Os  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/reassoc_4.f  -O  scan-tree-dump-times reassoc1 "[0-9] \* " 22
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f  -Os  execution test
Running /home/ig25/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/gomp/gomp.exp ...
Running /home/ig25/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/graphite/graphite.exp
...
Running /home/ig25/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1
loops" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "complicated
access pattern" 1


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-11-22 23:54 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-23  0:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
  2008-11-23  8:56 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-11-23  0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-11-23 00:32 -------
(1) It seems that the failure of gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90 comes from a
too broad regexp for scan-tree-dump-times: grep memset
array_memset_2.f90.003t.original gives

          _gfortran_runtime_error_at (&"At line 8 of file
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90"[1]{lb: 1 sz:
1}, &"Array reference out of bounds, upper bound of dimension 2 of array \'a\'
exceeded (%ld > %ld)"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1}, 1, (<unnamed-signed:32>) ubound.2);
          _gfortran_runtime_error_at (&"At line 8 of file
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90"[1]{lb: 1 sz:
1}, &"Array reference out of bounds, upper bound of dimension 2 of array \'a\'
exceeded (%ld > %ld)"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1}, (<unnamed-signed:32>) NON_LVALUE_EXPR
<D.1514>, (<unnamed-signed:32>) ubound.2);
          _gfortran_runtime_error_at (&"At line 8 of file
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90"[1]{lb: 1 sz:
1}, &"Array reference out of bounds for array \'a\', upper bound of dimension 1
 exceeded (%ld > %ld)"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1}, 1, (<unnamed-signed:32>) ubound.0);
  (void) __builtin_memset ((void *) &b, 0, 8);
  (void) __builtin_memset ((void *) &c, 0, 8);

Either the regexp or the name of the test should be changed.

(2) The failure of gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90 comes from " Incorrect size in
SOURCE argument to RESHAPE intrinsic: is 9, should be 4".  This is wrong, the
standard says:

"If PAD is absent or of size zero, the size of SOURCE shall be greater than or
equal to PRODUCT (SHAPE)."

(3) I think the failure of gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90: "Array reference out of
bounds for array 'p', upper bound of dimension 1 exceeded (4 > 3)", is also
wrong.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-11-23  0:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2008-11-23  8:56 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2008-11-23 20:53 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-11-23  8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-11-23 08:54 -------
(In reply to comment #6)

> (2) The failure of gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90 comes from " Incorrect size in
> SOURCE argument to RESHAPE intrinsic: is 9, should be 4".  This is wrong, the
> standard says:
> 
> "If PAD is absent or of size zero, the size of SOURCE shall be greater than or
> equal to PRODUCT (SHAPE)."

You're right; this is now PR 38234.


> (3) I think the failure of gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90: "Array reference out of
> bounds for array 'p', upper bound of dimension 1 exceeded (4 > 3)", is also
> wrong.

This is PR 36091.

We should run the testsuite with -fbounds-check to catch
this kind of thing.


-- 

tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|38234                       |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-11-23  8:56 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-23 20:53 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
  2008-11-23 21:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-11-23 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-11-23 20:52 -------
For gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f the failure comes from the old style array
declaration:

     double precision   dx(1), cutlo, cuthi, hitest, sum, xmax,zero,one

If 'dx(1)' is replaced by 'dx(*)', -fbounds-check does not detect any error
(which may be wrong, but I don't think there is any way to detect the problem
with a local analysis).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (7 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-11-23 20:53 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2008-11-23 21:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
  2008-11-23 22:40 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-11-23 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-11-23 21:02 -------
In addition to comment #8, the bound check would be possible using:

     double precision   dx(n), cutlo, cuthi, hitest, sum, xmax,zero,one


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (8 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-11-23 21:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2008-11-23 22:40 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
  2009-01-03 20:30 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2009-01-03 21:03 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-11-23 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2008-11-23 22:39 -------
With the following changes:

Only in ../_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/: array_memset_2.f90
Only in gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/: array_setmem_2.f90

--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr37243.f   2008-09-04
19:10:20.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr37243.f 2008-11-23 22:54:23.000000000 +0100
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
       IF (J .GT. N) GO TO 320
       DO 240 K = 1,N
   240 V(K,I) = ZERO
-      CALL DAXPY(N,DUM,V(1,II),1,V(1,I),1)
+      CALL DAXPY(N,DUM,V(1,I),1,V(1,I),1)
   260 CONTINUE
       DUMI = ZERO
       DO 280 K = 1,N

--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f 2007-11-07
10:25:55.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f       2008-11-23 22:53:37.000000000
+0100
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@

       double precision function dnrm2 ( n, dx, incx)
       integer i, incx, ix, j, n, next
-      double precision   dx(1), cutlo, cuthi, hitest, sum, xmax,zero,one
+      double precision   dx(n), cutlo, cuthi, hitest, sum, xmax,zero,one
       data   zero, one /0.0d0, 1.0d0/
       data cutlo, cuthi / 8.232d-11,  1.304d19 /
       j = 0

I only get the following failures with -fbounds-check:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_13.f90  -Os  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times ldist "distributed:
split to 4 loops" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/ltrans-7.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times ltrans "transformed
loop" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/reassoc_4.f  -O  scan-tree-dump-times reassoc1 "[0-9] \* " 22
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1
loops" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing
an unaligned access" 1
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90  -O  scan-tree-dump-times vect "complicated
access pattern" 1

So, but for pr36091, the failures are expected regexps changed by
-fbounds-check which is not too surprising.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (9 preceding siblings ...)
  2008-11-23 22:40 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-01-03 20:30 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2009-01-03 21:03 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-03 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #11 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-01-03 20:28 -------
PR27989 and PR30939 essentially describe the same problem, once with an
implicit, once with an explicit interface. The explicit case is sort-of solved,
the implicit case will be if we ever get whole-file checking.

Do we need to keep both open? Can we merge them, close both and/or open a new
one that clarifies what needs to be done?


-- 

dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
  2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (10 preceding siblings ...)
  2009-01-03 20:30 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-03 21:03 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
  11 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-03 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-01-03 21:01 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
Count PR32317 in as well.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

[parent not found: <bug-27766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>]

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
       [not found] <bug-27766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2013-06-26 18:00 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
  2013-08-09  7:55 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-06-26 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766

Bug 27766 depends on bug 29800, which changed state.

Bug 29800 Summary: -fbounds-check: For derived types, write not also compound name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/27766] [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs
       [not found] <bug-27766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2013-06-26 18:00 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-09  7:55 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-09  7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766

Bug 27766 depends on bug 39286, which changed state.

Bug 39286 Summary: Missing out-of-bounds diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39286

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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2013-08-09  7:55 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-05-24 21:46 [Bug fortran/27766] New: [meta] -fbounds-check related bugs fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-24 21:51 ` [Bug fortran/27766] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-27  9:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 20:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 20:48 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-22 23:54 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-23  0:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-11-23  8:56 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-23 20:53 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-11-23 21:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-11-23 22:40 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-03 20:30 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-03 21:03 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <bug-27766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-06-26 18:00 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-09  7:55 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).