From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28683 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2010 13:44:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 28607 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2010 13:43:50 -0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100724134350.28606.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/44945] [4.6 Regression] Wrong decl for module vars / FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_array_structure_constructor.f90 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenther at suse dot de" 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: 2010-07/txt/msg02639.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-07-24 13:43 ------- Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] Wrong decl for module vars / FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_array_structure_constructor.f90 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote: > > > ------- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-24 07:49 ------- > (In reply to comment #22) > > > In my opinion revision 162487 is only a partial fix of the problem. If I split > > > a modified test case in two files [...] I still get [...] Bus error > > > > Does -flto help? > > Yes: > > [macbook] f90/bug% gfc -flto -fwhole-file -m32 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > char_array_structure_constructor_db_1.f90 > char_array_structure_constructor_db_2.f90 > [macbook] f90/bug% a.out > [macbook] f90/bug% > > > > Note that it is not surprising since -fwhole-file operates at the file level. > > > > Well, the middle-end also operates on single-file level: Thus, there is no > > reason to break. > > I am not sure to understand the comment. In my opinion, valid multifile fortran > should never be miscompiled (and should not require -lto to do so!-). Look at -fdump-tree-original-uid dumps and see if you find the same decl with two different UIDs. I bet you will. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945