public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) "invokes undefined behavior" warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:36:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-57904-4-qderB5qM3L@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-57904-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> With the patch in comment 9, gfortran.dg/class_48.f90 no longer fails and I
> don't see any regression. The warning for the test in pr58746 comment 2 is
> also fixed.

But you can always create testcases (in C/C++ etc.) that will hit this warning,
so while the FE change is possible, we need to do something either about the
optimization passes in between IPA and cunrolli (copyprop change Jeff talks
about, perhaps only done for that single pass instance and not others, or all?,
guess depending on how expensive it is) or scheduling there another instance of
some other cleanup pass, or deferring the warning reporting until some cleanup.

For the FE change, I guess most important are benchmark results, doesn't it
slow down important benchmarks?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-12-20  8:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-16  9:05 [Bug fortran/57904] New: " burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-07-23 19:53 ` [Bug fortran/57904] " jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-09 12:53 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-19 23:03 ` [Bug fortran/57904] [4.9 Regression] " hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-20 17:40 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-10-30 13:13 ` [Bug middle-end/57904] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-27 15:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-27 15:59 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2013-12-19 21:32 ` law at redhat dot com
2013-12-20  5:51 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-12-20  6:26 ` law at redhat dot com
2013-12-20  7:21 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-12-20  8:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-12-20  9:54 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-12-20 19:22 ` law at redhat dot com
2013-12-20 21:56 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-12-20 21:58 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-12-20 22:27 ` law at redhat dot com
2013-12-20 22:28 ` law at redhat dot com
2014-01-17 17:50 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-17 17:51 ` law at redhat dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-57904-4-qderB5qM3L@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).