From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26433 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2010 09:29:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 26289 invoked by uid 48); 25 Jun 2010 09:28:39 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100625092839.26288.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/43866] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk" 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: 2010-06/txt/msg02439.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #20 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-25 09:28 ------- (In reply to comment #18) > That part comes from the questionable testcase, which does > a_sp => matrix%local_data_sp > before the loop unconditionally, eventhough matrix%local_data_sp is > uninitialized unless use_sp is .true. thanks for looking into the bug report. Actually the testcase can be turned in 'unquestionable' by adding a 'NULLIFY(a%local_data_sp)' in the main program. At that point the pointer assignment (a_sp => matrix%local_data_sp) makes a_sp defined, but valgrind still yields an error. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43866