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 593483858D37; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 11:48:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 593483858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687434511;
	bh=k7xVqkSCtwh83MdxuFBVsqP1hJmZghJvO1cQpXDyOpg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=k2ALvk6pFxeyTOAz/IiTRk20e0x2mDZGYVtVTiYLuVANM+J8kWuaQRhBATyIt40K5
	 fV8EYGaG7bREB4Y7TzEw8JEfbTV72Vvi2j0R4rtecNx3DvtkZv+IkdOT6aItABcT9h
	 J9ul3f+WILlg7H6NIA2AFa0Lu942616nARzET4kU=
From: "juergen.reuter at desy dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/110311] [14 Regression] gfortran 14.0 regression
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 11:48:30 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: juergen.reuter at desy dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110311-4-9i1xT6CuKM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110311-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110311-4@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=3D110311

--- Comment #9 from J=C3=BCrgen Reuter <juergen.reuter at desy dot de> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to J=C3=BCrgen Reuter from comment #7)
> > The problem seems really connected to optimization, if I compile our co=
de
> > with -g -O0 or -g -O1, everything works ok. Next, I will try to check w=
hy it
> > is actually failing (my guess, unconfirmed yet, is that some data struc=
tures
> > are optimized away such that the program runs then on inconsistent data=
).
> > Then I will check that specific commit. We are sure that it was introdu=
ced
> > within this time frame, because we have a weekly CI that clones gcc, and
> > then builds and runs our code and testsuite. That was working on the mo=
rning
> > of June 12, but failed on the morning of June 19.
>=20
> Do you know if -fno-tree-vectorizer causes the issue to go away?

Hi Andrew,
you were right. Compiling and running with -fno-tree-vectorize does not show
any issues. All our checks work without problems.
Cheers,
   Juergen=