From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-374652-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25669 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2011 20:23:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 25653 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2011 20:22:59 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_SG
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; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:22:05 +0000
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/51218] [4.7 Regression] Potential optimization bug due to implicit_pure?
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:08:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51218-4-AxWan2lp4V@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51218-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51218-4@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/msg02148.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218

--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> 2011-11-21 20:21:01 UTC ---
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 08:02:20PM +0000, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
> 
> --- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-21 20:02:20 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > One thing it relies on is that the compiler recognizes
> > that the bad function are not pure, as they have a
> > side effect (e.g. accessing module variable call_level).
> > If a side effect is able to disable critical optimizations,
> > then I'm optimistic that the code will work on most platforms.
> > 
> > Now as promised, here's the reduced example:
> 
> Thanks for the example!
> 
> Untested patch:
> 
> --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
> @@ -3257,6 +3255,7 @@ pure_subroutine (gfc_code *c, gfc_symbol *sym)
>    else if (gfc_pure (NULL))
>      gfc_error ("Subroutine call to '%s' at %L is not PURE", sym->name,
>                &c->loc);
> +  gfc_current_ns->proc_name->attr.implicit_pure = 0;
>  }

Harald's example has function calls not subroutines.  I would
expect that you need to set this in pure_function as well.

Also, does this type of change inhibit reason why 
implicit_pure was added in the first place?