* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-24 12:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-25 15:52 ` [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-24 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |12.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-24 12:53 ` [Bug libfortran/106079] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-07-25 15:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-29 14:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-25 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2022-07-25
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-24 12:53 ` [Bug libfortran/106079] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-25 15:52 ` [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-07-29 14:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-29 20:58 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-29 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 53381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53381&action=edit
gcc13-pr106079.patch
Untested fix.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-07-29 14:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-07-29 20:58 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-30 2:49 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-29 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried the patch on trunk and it fixed the failure. I am trying a full make
check there and with gcc 12.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-07-29 20:58 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-07-30 2:49 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-30 10:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-30 2:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch causes a bunch of new failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/allocatable-dummy.f90 -Os execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/allocate-errors.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/argument-association-assumed-rank-7.f90 -O1
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/argument-association-assumed-rank-7.f90 -O2
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-3.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-7.f90 -Os execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/contiguous-3.f90 -O0 execution test
Though it did fix these:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c-interop/fc-descriptor-6.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
-fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O3 -g execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -Os execution test
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-07-30 2:49 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-07-30 10:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-30 11:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-30 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Strange, in my 12 branch distro (scratch) build the only differences with the
patch are:
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O0 execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O1 execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O2 execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
-fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O3 -g execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -Os execution test
and nothing else.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2022-07-30 10:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-07-30 11:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-01 6:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-30 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And on the box I was working on this fix (Fedora 34, glibc 2.33) without the
fix I see in ../configure --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--with-long-double-format=ieee --with-long-double-128
make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp=boz* c-interop.exp'
Running /home/jakub/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/c-interop.exp ...
Running /home/jakub/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
-fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -O3 -g execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 -Os execution test
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 1963
# of unexpected failures 6
# of unsupported tests 12
and with the change:
Running /home/jakub/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/c-interop/c-interop.exp ...
Running /home/jakub/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 1969
# of unsupported tests 12
For the latter
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=(nil) elem_len=16 version=1
rank=0 type=CFI_type_struct attribute=CFI_attribute_allocatable>
PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/allocatable-dummy.f90 -Os execution test
CFI_allocate: Base address of C descriptor must be NULL.
CFI_allocate: The object of the C descriptor must be a pointer or allocatable
variable.
CFI_deallocate: Base address is already NULL.
PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/allocate-errors.f90 -O0 execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/argument-association-assumed-rank-7.f90 -O1
execution test
PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/argument-association-assumed-rank-7.f90 -O2
(test for excess errors)
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=(nil) elem_len=8 version=1
rank=0 type=CFI_type_struct attribute=CFI_attribute_allocatable>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=(nil) elem_len=8 version=1
rank=0 type=CFI_type_struct attribute=CFI_attribute_pointer>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x1000e341910 elem_len=8 version=1
rank=0 type=CFI_type_struct attribute=CFI_attribute_allocatable>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x1000e341930 elem_len=8 version=1
rank=0 type=CFI_type_struct attribute=CFI_attribute_pointer>
PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-3.f90 -O2 execution test
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x7ffffbbdb4a0 elem_len=8 version=1
rank=2 type=CFI_type_struct attribute=CFI_attribute_other
dim=[<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=10 sm=8>,
<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=5 sm=80>]>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x7ffffbbdb4a0 elem_len=4 version=1
rank=2 type=CFI_type_int attribute=CFI_attribute_pointer
dim=[<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=10 sm=8>,
<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=5 sm=80>]>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x7ffffbbdb4a4 elem_len=4 version=1
rank=2 type=CFI_type_int attribute=CFI_attribute_pointer
dim=[<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=10 sm=8>,
<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=5 sm=80>]>
PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/cf-descriptor-7.f90 -Os execution test
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x7fffd08bb074 elem_len=4 version=1
rank=1 type=CFI_type_int attribute=CFI_attribute_other
dim=[<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=5 sm=8>]>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x7fffd08bb074 elem_len=4 version=1
rank=1 type=CFI_type_int attribute=CFI_attribute_other
dim=[<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=5 sm=8>]>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x7fffd08bb080 elem_len=4 version=1
rank=1 type=CFI_type_int attribute=CFI_attribute_other
dim=[<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=5 sm=12>]>
<CFI_cdesc_t base_addr=0x7fffd08bb080 elem_len=4 version=1
rank=1 type=CFI_type_int attribute=CFI_attribute_other
dim=[<CFI_dim_t lower_bound=0 extent=5 sm=12>]>
PASS: gfortran.dg/c-interop/contiguous-3.f90 -O0 execution test
in the log. So, I can't really reproduce the above.
Not really clear how it could be related though, e.g. contiguous-3.f90 doesn't
have anything real/complex related in it.
C_LONG_DOUBLE is only present in typecodes-array-longdouble.f90 and
typecodes-scalar-longdouble.f90.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-07-30 11:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-08-01 6:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-01 22:07 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-08-01 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82ac4cd213867be939aedee15347e8fd3f200b6a
commit r13-1913-g82ac4cd213867be939aedee15347e8fd3f200b6a
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Aug 1 08:26:03 2022 +0200
libfortran: Fix up boz_15.f90 on powerpc64le with -mabi=ieeelongdouble
[PR106079]
The boz_15.f90 test FAILs on powerpc64le-linux when -mabi=ieeelongdouble
is used (either default through --with-long-double-format=ieee or
when used explicitly).
The problem is that the read/write transfer routines are called with
BT_REAL (or BT_COMPLEX) type and kind 17 which is magic we use to say
it is the IEEE quad real(kind=16) rather than the IBM double double
real(kind=16). For the floating point input/output we then handle kind
17 specially, but for B/O/Z we just treat the bytes of the floating point
value as binary blob and using 17 in that case results in unexpected
behavior, for write it means we don't estimate right how many chars we'll
need and print ******************** etc. rather than what we should, and
even with explicit size we'd print one further byte than intended.
For read it would even mean overwriting some unrelated byte after the
floating point object.
Fixed by using 16 instead of 17 in the read_radix and write_{b,o,z} calls.
2022-08-01 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR libfortran/106079
* io/transfer.c (formatted_transfer_scalar_read,
formatted_transfer_scalar_write): For type BT_REAL with kind 17
change kind to 16 before calling read_radix or write_{b,o,z}.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-08-01 6:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-08-01 22:07 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-03 9:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-03 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-08-01 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The fix worked fine in my testing on trunk. Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2022-08-01 22:07 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-08-03 9:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-03 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-08-03 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4e5ca7ff8c9afd3c38245aa6b939cd3ae49bf1fe
commit r12-8653-g4e5ca7ff8c9afd3c38245aa6b939cd3ae49bf1fe
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Aug 1 08:26:03 2022 +0200
libfortran: Fix up boz_15.f90 on powerpc64le with -mabi=ieeelongdouble
[PR106079]
The boz_15.f90 test FAILs on powerpc64le-linux when -mabi=ieeelongdouble
is used (either default through --with-long-double-format=ieee or
when used explicitly).
The problem is that the read/write transfer routines are called with
BT_REAL (or BT_COMPLEX) type and kind 17 which is magic we use to say
it is the IEEE quad real(kind=16) rather than the IBM double double
real(kind=16). For the floating point input/output we then handle kind
17 specially, but for B/O/Z we just treat the bytes of the floating point
value as binary blob and using 17 in that case results in unexpected
behavior, for write it means we don't estimate right how many chars we'll
need and print ******************** etc. rather than what we should, and
even with explicit size we'd print one further byte than intended.
For read it would even mean overwriting some unrelated byte after the
floating point object.
Fixed by using 16 instead of 17 in the read_radix and write_{b,o,z} calls.
2022-08-01 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR libfortran/106079
* io/transfer.c (formatted_transfer_scalar_read,
formatted_transfer_scalar_write): For type BT_REAL with kind 17
change kind to 16 before calling read_radix or write_{b,o,z}.
(cherry picked from commit 82ac4cd213867be939aedee15347e8fd3f200b6a)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/106079] [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after r12-6498-g07c60b8e33
2022-06-24 12:24 [Bug libfortran/106079] New: [12/13 regression] gfortran.dg/boz_15.f90 fails after gcc-12-6498-g07c60b8e33 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2022-08-03 9:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-08-03 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-08-03 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106079
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 12.2 and later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread