From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 49545385483A; Tue, 16 May 2023 22:32:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 49545385483A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684276358;
	bh=8MMYr6AebtqK7N0b8Kk00T4dvKOFJvdjJVtZfAiHqUA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BxWhhoISdQhOVNm018xQJ6IcqT9/v5GppZumnHX2y/yyEMHGpGttz3Z1bReveVENV
	 znJULvbm0fao4TvigQuWRkpfU+4uNEABd53/Iyv0p5Ynzz4ShmYsJnMucPdtl/7/AF
	 L7z3rRFPIPVUR8OLoE9SrGmnSF9RQOpItPkVgAl4=
From: "Gary.White at ColoState dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the
 contains statement
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 22:32:38 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: og12 (devel/omp/gcc-12)
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: Gary.White at ColoState dot edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109865-4-vib1mtgrOh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109865-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109865-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109865

--- Comment #11 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu <Gary.White at ColoSta=
te dot edu> ---
I've never used valgrind -- what would it do?

The problem isn't that the code is wrong -- otherwise -O0 would not generate
correct results.  The compiler is optimizing something incorrectly with -O1
that causes the numerical optimizer, i.e., va09ad code, to not work correct=
ly.=20
I included 2 files in the zip file that show incorrect and correct results =
--
basically va09ad just doesn't go anywhere, not finding an optimum after run=
ning
to the maximum number of function calls.  It's not blowing up or aborting --
just producing wrong answers.

I am willing to walk you through where the critical code is located, but ne=
ed
to know more of what system you're working on and how I can help.=