From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6721 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2010 10:02:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 4700 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2010 10:02:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100414100222.4699.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/43716] [4.6 Regression] Revision 158105 miscompiles doduc.f90 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "maxim at codesourcery dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg01344.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #18 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-14 10:02 ------- Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] Revision 158105 miscompiles doduc.f90 On 4/14/10 1:55 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote: > ------- Comment #17 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-14 09:55 ------- >> Well, it indeed looks invalid if there is NaNs involved and you use >> -ffinite-math-only. > > The NaN appears in the miscompiled executable. Note that I am not the author of > the doduc test, but it has been compiled by gfortran with -O3 -ffast-math for > years and ran without failure. Can you track where the NaN comes from and if it is indeed unexpected even with -ffast-math -ffinite-math-only? >> While I will not argue that my patch is 100% bug-free, this seems to be an >> invalid testcase. > > It may happen that the changes in revision 158105 is exposing a latent bug. That is always a possibility. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716