From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-414041-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8020 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2013 00:17:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 7794 invoked by uid 55); 4 Feb 2013 00:16:47 -0000
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/54932] Invalid loop code generated by Fortran FE for loops with bounds in HIGH(type)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:17:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
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-54932-4-cyWk0DxfY8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54932-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54932-4@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: 2013-02/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932

--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2013-02-04 00:16:44 UTC ---
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
> 
> --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > > > Thus, I close the bug as INVALID.
> > > ... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and remove
> > > the XFAIL I introduced?
> >
> > We jump through some hoops in or DO loop code generation to execute
> > a loop until HUGE(i) in a way that somebody who did not read the
> > standard well might expect, but which is actually invalid.
> >
> > If we do not do this any more, then we can probably simplify our DO
> > loops considerably.
> 
> This is probably too late for 4.8.0. The following patch takes advantage of the
> new option -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations to remove the xfail (and the two
> XPASS at -O0 and -O1):

This seems like good idea even fo 4.8.  Please also split the testcase - it
contains
several tests and only one has invalid overflow.

Honza