From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-374045-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25895 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2011 16:38:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 25697 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2011 16:38:38 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:37:52 +0000
From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/51134] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/arrayarg.f90
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:44:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51134-4-MPZY1yjyOd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51134-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51134-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg01541.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51134

--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-11-15 16:34:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Hi,
> the bug is loopy epilogue not being used because promoted value is not
> availbale. The non-loopy epilogue does not expect alignments
> greater than 16.
> 
> I am testing the following patch.
> I think we might still have bugs for blocks >8 && <16. Will try to produce
> testcase.

I believe so.  If you configure GCC for Linux/x86-64 with

--with-arch=core2 --with-cpu=atom

you will get

gengtype: malloc.c:3840: _int_malloc: Assertion `(unsigned long)(size) >=
(unsigned long)(nb)' failed.
make[6]: *** [s-gtype] Aborted