* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-07 23:49 ` jvdelisle at verizon dot net
2008-04-08 0:13 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at verizon dot net @ 2008-04-07 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2008-04-07 23:49 -------
Subject: Re: New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke
gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 23:18 +0000, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> With r133964, this test passed. With 133965 I see:
> f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
>
It is not target specific.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 23:49 ` [Bug fortran/35864] " jvdelisle at verizon dot net
@ 2008-04-08 0:13 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-08 15:16 ` [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (10 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-08 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-08 00:12 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
>
> It is not target specific.
Ah, I was a bit worried that it was. Since the failure had been there all day,
and noone have entered a matching PR or mentioning it on the lists, I just
*assumed* that it was... ;)
--
hp 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 |2008-04-08 00:12:28
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-07 23:49 ` [Bug fortran/35864] " jvdelisle at verizon dot net
2008-04-08 0:13 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-08 15:16 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-04-08 20:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-04-08 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-04-08 15:14 -------
I don't see the failure on (powerpc|i686)-apple-darwin9 nor in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-04/msg00549.html. So it does not
seem to affect all platforms.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-08 15:16 ` [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2008-04-08 20:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-09 11:46 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-08 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-08 20:05 -------
I see it on x86-64 Linux clearly enough and with -m32 and -m64. I think Paul
removed a check that we have to put back in.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-08 20:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-09 11:46 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-09 23:48 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-09 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-09 11:46 -------
> I see it on x86-64 Linux clearly enough and with -m32 and -m64. I think Paul
> removed a check that we have to put back in.
Whereas I do not see it, neither with -m32 nor -m64 on x86-64-linux (openSUSE
Factory); not even using valgrind. This is with
gfortran 4.4.0 20080409 (experimental) [trunk revision 134131]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-09 11:46 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-09 23:48 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-09 23:58 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-09 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-09 23:47 -------
After a clean bootstrap (empty build directory) I get a pass. I suspect we
have a dependency somewhere not getting taken car of. Hans-Peter can you try
this and see whta happends.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-09 23:48 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-09 23:58 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-10 0:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-09 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-09 23:57 -------
Try what? I always start with a clean slate; an empty build directory!
Perhaps you mean something else?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-09 23:58 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-10 0:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-11 9:55 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-10 00:00 -------
I haven't tried it myself, but since we're in voodoo-debug mode, try
"--enable-checking=yes,valgrind".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-10 0:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-11 9:55 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-11 12:24 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-11 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-11 09:54 -------
It's mine, it's mine! I even posted a fix for it last night but have not had a
chance to commit it. I'll try to do so over the weekend.
As Jerry remarks, it sometimes goes away; such as on my x86_ia64/FC8, on which
I developed the patch that caused the regression.
Sorry about the problem.
Cheers
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2008-04-08 00:12:28 |2008-04-11 09:54:39
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-11 9:55 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-11 12:24 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-15 19:42 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-11 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-11 12:23 -------
> It's mine, it's mine! I even posted a fix for it last night but have not had
> a chance to commit it. I'll try to do so over the weekend.
The mentioned patch was posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-04/msg00107.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-11 12:24 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-15 19:42 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-15 19:44 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-01 7:33 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-15 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 19:41 -------
Subject: Bug 35864
Author: pault
Date: Tue Apr 15 19:40:33 2008
New Revision: 134329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134329
Log:
2008-04-15 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/35864
* expr.c (scalarize_intrinsic_call): Reorder identification of
array argument so that if one is not found a segfault does not
occur. Return FAILURE if all scalar arguments.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-15 19:42 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-15 19:44 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-01 7:33 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-15 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-15 19:43 -------
Finally, I have managed to deal with this.
Sorry it took so long
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35864] [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90
2008-04-07 23:19 [Bug fortran/35864] New: [4.4 Regression] Revision 133965 broke gfortran.dg/initialization_1.f90 for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-15 19:44 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-01 7:33 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-01 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-01 07:32 -------
Subject: Bug 35864
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 1 07:31:28 2008
New Revision: 134847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134847
Log:
2008-05-01 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/35864
* expr.c (scalarize_intrinsic_call): Reorder identification of
array argument so that if one is not found a segfault does not
occur. Return FAILURE if all scalar arguments.
PR fortran/35780
* expr.c (scalarize_intrinsic_call): Identify which argument is
an array and use that as the template.
(check_init_expr): Remove tests that first argument is an array
in the call to scalarize_intrinsic_call.
2008-05-01 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/35780
* gfortran.dg/simplify_argN_1.f90: New test.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/simplify_argN_1.f90
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/expr.c
branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35864
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread