From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-410682-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14782 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2012 11:54:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 14701 invoked by uid 48); 24 Dec 2012 11:54:01 -0000
From: "Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/55341] address-sanitizer and Fortran
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:54:00 -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: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Attachment #29019 is obsolete
Message-ID: <bug-55341-4-Kdm7n2vCzD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55341-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55341-4@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: 2012-12/txt/msg02290.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341

Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #29019|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #47 from Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> 2012-12-24 11:53:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 29041
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29041
good and bad version of the asm of
__qs_dispersion_pairpot_MOD_calculate_dispersion_pairpot

two asm files for the routine that appears to be problematic (
__qs_dispersion_pairpot_MOD_calculate_dispersion_pairpot), compiled once with
and once without -march=native

I'm not particularly versed in asm, but this part of the diff seems like it
could be significant, it is just before the return of the subroutine, and could
be some difference in unpoisoning ?:

35418,35423d35699
<       movq    -10392(%rbp), %rdx
<       movl    $724, %esi
<       testb   $1, %dl
<       je      .L66
<       movb    $0, (%rdx)
< .LVL2656:
35425,35426c35701,35702
<       leaq    1(%rax), %rdx
<       movb    $-45, %sil
---
>       addq    $724, %rax
> .LVL2645:
35428,35460c35704,35708
<       testb   $2, %dl
<       je      .L67
<       movw    $0, (%rdx)
<       addq    $2, %rdx
<       subl    $2, %esi
< .L67:
<       testb   $4, %dl
<       je      .L68
<       movl    $0, (%rdx)
<       addq    $4, %rdx
<       subl    $4, %esi
< .L68:
<       movl    %esi, %eax
<       shrl    $3, %eax
<       movl    %eax, %ecx
<       movl    $0, %eax
<       movq    %rdx, %rdi
<       rep stosq
<       movq    %rdi, %rdx
<       testb   $4, %sil
<       je      .L69
<       movl    $0, (%rdi)
<       addq    $4, %rdx
< .L69:
<       testb   $2, %sil
<       je      .L70
<       movw    $0, (%rdx)
<       addq    $2, %rdx
< .L70:
<       testb   $1, %sil
<       je      .L71
<       movb    $0, (%rdx)
< .L71:
---
>       movq    -10392(%rbp), %rbx
>       movl    $0, (%rbx)
>       addq    $4, -10392(%rbp)
>       cmpq    %rax, -10392(%rbp)
>       jb      .L66
35653c35901