From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30758 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2012 12:17:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 30747 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2012 12:17:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_VS,TW_ZJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:17:00 +0000 From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/43716] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Revision 158105 miscompiles doduc.f90 Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:17:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg01700.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716 --- Comment #34 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-21 12:16:42 UTC --- Maybe no problem with gcc at all: Compile doduc.f90 with -g -O3 -ffast-math -ffpe-trap=invalid Starting program: /home/uros/pb11/lin/source/a.out MAIN : FIN S00002 MAIN : FIN S00001 MAIN : FIN S00011 MAIN : FIN S00022 Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception. 0x0000000000402a71 in s00018 (i12=0, i21=0, iorg=0) at doduc.f90:3789 3789 & dtpa = 2.*sens*DABS(TMI(k)/DTMi(k)) (gdb) disass 0x0000000000402a4f <+431>: movsd 0x229e61(%rip),%xmm3 # 0x62c8b8 0x0000000000402a57 <+439>: movsd %xmm3,0x100(%rsp) 0x0000000000402a60 <+448>: movsd 0x21c790(%rip),%xmm3 # 0x61f1f8 0x0000000000402a68 <+456>: movsd 0x100(%rsp),%xmm6 => 0x0000000000402a71 <+465>: divsd %xmm3,%xmm0 0x0000000000402a75 <+469>: addsd %xmm6,%xmm6 0x0000000000402a79 <+473>: andpd %xmm1,%xmm3 0x0000000000402a7d <+477>: andpd %xmm1,%xmm0 (gdb) i r xmm3 xmm0 xmm3 0 xmm0 0 To me, it looks like invalid test. Any fortraners here to share their opinion?