* [Bug middle-end/45131] [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-07-29 14:13 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-07-29 14:16 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2010-07-29 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-29 14:12 -------
It may be caused by revision 162653:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg01007.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |davidxl at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/45131] [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-07-29 14:13 ` [Bug middle-end/45131] " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-07-29 14:16 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-07-29 14:19 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2010-07-29 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-29 14:16 -------
It happened between revision 162661 and revision 162667.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|davidxl at gcc dot gnu dot |
|org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/45131] [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-07-29 14:13 ` [Bug middle-end/45131] " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-07-29 14:16 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-07-29 14:19 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-07-29 14:56 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2010-07-29 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-29 14:19 -------
It is caused by revision 162667:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg01021.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/45131] [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-29 14:19 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-07-29 14:56 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-29 15:48 ` [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-29 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 14:55 -------
HJ, as it works on most systems, can you do some debugging?
a) Does the system has HAVE_TTYNAME defined for libgfortran/ ?
b) If it fails in the library, how? Otherwise: Which of the asserts fails in
the test case? Can you replace for the failing line the "call abort()" by
"print *, <variable name>"
I assume, all the failures have the same cause thus it should be sufficient to
only analyze one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-29 14:56 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-29 15:48 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-07-30 1:50 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2010-07-29 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-29 15:47 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> HJ, as it works on most systems, can you do some debugging?
Trunk was broken since yesterday and was fixed a while ago.
> a) Does the system has HAVE_TTYNAME defined for libgfortran/ ?
Yes.
> b) If it fails in the library, how? Otherwise: Which of the asserts fails in
> the test case? Can you replace for the failing line the "call abort()" by
> "print *, <variable name>"
>
[hjl@gnu-1 gfortran]$ cat inquire_3.f90
! pr14836
OPEN(UNIT=9, ACCESS='DIRECT', RECL=80, FORM='UNFORMATTED')
INQUIRE(UNIT=9,NEXTREC=NREC)
WRITE(UNIT=9,REC=5) 1
INQUIRE(UNIT=9,NEXTREC=NREC)
PRINT*,NREC
IF (NREC.NE.6) CALL ABORT
READ(UNIT=9,REC=1) MVI
INQUIRE(UNIT=9,NEXTREC=NREC)
PRINT*,NREC
IF (NREC.NE.2) CALL ABORT
CLOSE(UNIT=9,STATUS='DELETE')
END
[hjl@gnu-1 gfortran]$
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../
inquire_3.f90 -w -O0
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/i686-linux/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/i686-linux/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/i686-linux/./libgfortran/.libs
-L/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/i686-linux/./libiberty -lm -static
[hjl@gnu-1 gfortran]$ ./a.out
1
Aborted
[hjl@gnu-1 gfortran]$
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.6 regression] New test |[4.6 regression] New Fortran
|failures configured with -- |test failures
|with-cpu=atom |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-29 15:48 ` [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-07-30 1:50 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-30 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-30 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 01:49 -------
This is really odd because the patch does not touch these parts of the library,
at least for inquire_3.f90. I wonder if there is something latent here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-30 1:50 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-30 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-30 14:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-30 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 09:32 -------
I see the same with -m32 on x86_64. Interestingly I see it with -O0
and libgfortran from 4.5 as well, so it looks like a frontend problem, not
a library problem to me.
--
rguenth 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 |2010-07-30 09:32:24
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-30 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-30 14:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-30 15:12 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-30 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 14:06 -------
#7 confirms my suspicions. I will try to have a look into this in the next few
days. If anyone else has time, please do.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-30 14:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-30 15:12 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-31 16:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-30 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 15:11 -------
I can also reproduce it with -m32 and x86-64. The dump looks OK; if one uses a
debugger, one sees that in inquire_via_unit:
u->last_record == 0 - instead of the expect "5".
but u->flags.access == ACCESS_DIRECT as expected.
I wonder whether the information somehow gets lost due to the new "fn spec"
settings for trans-io.c (..._with_spec) - though using ".w" looks ok -
additionally, I do not see how the FE could modify the libraries' unit data in
such a way.
Side question: Why is st_inquire actually listed as returning an integer if it
is void?
362 parm_type = build_pointer_type
(st_parameter[IOPARM_ptype_inquire].type);
363 iocall[IOCALL_INQUIRE] = gfc_build_library_function_decl_with_spec (
364 get_identifier (PREFIX("st_inquire")), ".w",
365 gfc_int4_type_node, 1, parm_type);
Ditto for st_iolength_done, st_flush, st_endfile, st_backspace, st_rewind, and
st_wait
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-30 15:12 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-31 16:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-31 17:05 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-31 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-31 16:28 -------
I can see one here on a 32 bit machine. Moving string.h down in the file as
noted by David Edelsohn fixes it. I also changed the return type to void in
trans-io.c.
Index: inquire.c
===================================================================
--- inquire.c (revision 162724)
+++ inquire.c (working copy)
@@ -26,9 +26,9 @@
/* Implement the non-IOLENGTH variant of the INQUIRY statement */
-#include <string.h>
#include "io.h"
#include "unix.h"
+#include <string.h>
static const char undefined[] = "UNDEFINED";
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2010-07-30 09:32:24 |2010-07-31 16:28:49
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-31 16:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-31 17:05 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-01 17:28 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-31 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-31 17:04 -------
I see the problem with 4.4.3 as well. I think the patch in #10 is only masking
it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-31 17:05 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-08-01 17:28 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-01 19:38 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-02 13:19 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-08-01 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-01 17:28 -------
This appears to be fixed now from the commit of patch in #10. The related
failures showing in gcc test results are no longer there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-01 17:28 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-08-01 19:38 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-02 13:19 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-08-01 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-01 19:38 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> This appears to be fixed now from the commit of patch in #10.
Which is the commit:
Date: Sat Jul 31 21:37:25 2010
New Revision: 162788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162788
Log:
* io/inquire.c: Include io.h before string.h.
Modified:
trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
trunk/libgfortran/io/inquire.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/45131] [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
2010-07-29 14:11 [Bug middle-end/45131] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures configured with --with-cpu=atom hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-01 19:38 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-08-02 13:19 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-08-02 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 13:19 -------
Closing as fixed. Regarding comment #7. I do not see the problem on 4.5. I
reran tests here on my machine that failed with 4.6 and there were no failures
on 4.5
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread