* [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0
[not found] <bug-61928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2014-07-27 19:53 ` kevinecahill at gmail dot com
2014-07-27 21:10 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: kevinecahill at gmail dot com @ 2014-07-27 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Cahill <kevinecahill at gmail dot com> ---
Nonsense.
I included the linpack subroutines explicitly.
Look at my fortan code.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Kevin Cahill
Professor of Physics & Astronomy
Physics Dept. 1919 Lomas NE, MSC 07 4220
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
kevinecahill@gmail.com cahill@unm.edu 505 205 5448
On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:39 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
>
> Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Version|unknown |4.9.0
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> You are not linking with the linpack library.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0
[not found] <bug-61928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-07-27 19:53 ` [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0 kevinecahill at gmail dot com
@ 2014-07-27 21:10 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-27 23:41 ` kevinecahill at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-07-27 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With you attachment, I am getting this:
/tmp/ccBACux5.o: In function `dgefa.2334':
pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1282): undefined reference to `idamax_'
/tmp/ccBACux5.o: In function `dgedi.2345':
pr61928.f90:(.text+0x19fa): undefined reference to `dscal_'
pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1aba): undefined reference to `daxpy_'
pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1c2d): undefined reference to `daxpy_'
pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1cbd): undefined reference to `dswap_'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
I did not link this with anything. The four last listed procedures listed are
not defined in the attachment, although used.
In subroutine dgefa, idamax is defined as an integer. If I delete that line,
the undefined reference to idamax_ goes away. The last four references I
suspect are in the BLAS library that I am not linked to at the moment.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0
[not found] <bug-61928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-07-27 19:53 ` [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0 kevinecahill at gmail dot com
2014-07-27 21:10 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-07-27 23:41 ` kevinecahill at gmail dot com
2014-08-02 14:41 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: kevinecahill at gmail dot com @ 2014-07-27 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Cahill <kevinecahill at gmail dot com> ---
Thanks.
That sounds sensible.
I will check it.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Kevin Cahill
Professor of Physics & Astronomy
Physics Dept. 1919 Lomas NE, MSC 07 4220
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
kevinecahill@gmail.com cahill@unm.edu 505 205 5448
On Jul 27, 2014, at 3:10 PM, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
>
> Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> With you attachment, I am getting this:
>
> /tmp/ccBACux5.o: In function `dgefa.2334':
> pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1282): undefined reference to `idamax_'
> /tmp/ccBACux5.o: In function `dgedi.2345':
> pr61928.f90:(.text+0x19fa): undefined reference to `dscal_'
> pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1aba): undefined reference to `daxpy_'
> pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1c2d): undefined reference to `daxpy_'
> pr61928.f90:(.text+0x1cbd): undefined reference to `dswap_'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> I did not link this with anything. The four last listed procedures listed are
> not defined in the attachment, although used.
>
> In subroutine dgefa, idamax is defined as an integer. If I delete that line,
> the undefined reference to idamax_ goes away. The last four references I
> suspect are in the BLAS library that I am not linked to at the moment.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0
[not found] <bug-61928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-07-27 23:41 ` kevinecahill at gmail dot com
@ 2014-08-02 14:41 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2014-08-02 15:56 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-08-02 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2014-08-02
CC| |kargl at troutmask dot apl.washing
| |ton.edu
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Reduced test
program Z0linpack ! with LINPACK's dgedi and dgefa, and SLATEC's idamax
implicit none
integer( kind = 4 )::n
integer( kind = 4 )::info,lda
integer( kind = 4 ),allocatable:: IPVT(:)
integer( kind = 4 ),parameter::ns=10,job=10
doubleprecision,dimension(:,:),allocatable::A
call dgefa ( A, lda, n, ipvt, info )
contains
subroutine dgefa ( a, lda, n, ipvt, info )
implicit none
integer ( kind = 4 ) lda
integer ( kind = 4 ) n
real ( kind = 8 ) a(lda,n)
integer ( kind = 4 ) info
integer ( kind = 4 ) ipvt(n)
integer ( kind = 4 ) idamax
integer ( kind = 4 ) k
integer ( kind = 4 ) l
k = 1
l = idamax ( n-k+1, a(k,k), 1 ) + k - 1
return
end
function idamax ( n, dx, incx )
implicit none
real ( kind = 8 ) dx(*)
integer ( kind = 4 ) idamax
integer ( kind = 4 ) incx
integer ( kind = 4 ) n
idamax = 0
return
end
end program Z0linpack
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc pr61928_red.f90
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
"_idamax_", referenced from:
_dgefa.2338 in cc23XSKJ.o
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
However if I comment the line
integer ( kind = 4 ) idamax
in the subroutine dgefa, the code compiles and links without error. AFAIK the
subroutine dgefa and the function idamax are not designed to be internal
procedures.
It seems that with the above line gfortran assumes that idamax is an external
function and not the internal one; however I don't know where to find it in the
standard.
I suspect that this PR should be closed as invalid, but I let someone else to
make the call!
Note that compiling the code with gfortran 4.5 gives a lot of errors, starting
with
pr61928_red.f90:29.2:
end
1
Error: END SUBROUTINE statement expected at (1)
pr61928_red.f90:31:
function idamax ( n, dx, incx )
1
Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0
[not found] <bug-61928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-08-02 14:41 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2014-08-02 15:56 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-02 18:17 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2014-12-06 14:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-08-02 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
My thinking, right or wrong, is that the code is invalid because idamax is
defined as an integer which conflicts with the subroutine name.
Ifort gives the exact same error. (Ifort also insists that the end statements
for the function and subroutine state "end function" and "end subroutine" but
that is a separate issue.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0
[not found] <bug-61928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-08-02 15:56 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-08-02 18:17 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
2014-12-06 14:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gmx dot de @ 2014-08-02 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #6)
> My thinking, right or wrong, is that the code is invalid because idamax is
> defined as an integer which conflicts with the subroutine name.
^^^^^^^^^^ internal procedure
> Ifort gives the exact same error. (Ifort also insists that the end
> statements for the function and subroutine state "end function" and "end
> subroutine" but that is a separate issue.)
Also NAG agrees with you. And NAG is almost always right ;-)
I tend do believe that F2008 section 12.2.2 applies here:
- The declaration in subroutine dgefa makes it an *external* procedure,
- The subprogram in the scope of main makes it a *internal* procedure.
Note that:
"... Internal subprograms are the same as external subprograms except
that the name of the internal procedure is not a global identifier,
an internal subprogram shall not contain an ENTRY statement, and the
internal subprogram has access to host entities by host association."
So gfortran, Ifort and NAG are right and the original code is invalid.
>From gcc-bugs-return-457623-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sat Aug 02 18:27:22 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-457623-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1562 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2014 18:27:21 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1510 invoked by uid 48); 2 Aug 2014 18:27:18 -0000
From: "latlon90180+gcc_bugzilla at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/61999] New: `gfc_simplify_dot_product` causes ICE for constant arguments
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 18:27:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: latlon90180+gcc_bugzilla 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-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
Message-ID: <bug-61999-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2
Content-length: 989
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida999
Bug ID: 61999
Summary: `gfc_simplify_dot_product` causes ICE for constant
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: latlon90180+gcc_bugzilla at gmail dot com
Following code leads `gcc-mp-4.8 (MacPorts gcc48 4.8.2_2) 4.8.2` and `GNU
Fortran (MacPorts gcc47 4.7.3_5) 4.7.3` to ICE.
```fortran
program main
use, intrinsic:: iso_fortran_env, only: output_unit
implicit none
write(output_unit, *) dot_product([1, 2], [2.0, 3.0])
stop
end program main
```
```
f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_simplify_dot_product, at
fortran/simplify.c:1886
f951: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6
gfortran-mp-4.8: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6 (program f951)
Abort trap: 6
```
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/61928] a fortran90 program compiles on hopper at NERSC but not under gfortran 4.9.0
[not found] <bug-61928-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2014-08-02 18:17 ` anlauf at gmx dot de
@ 2014-12-06 14:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-12-06 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61928
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>From comment 7 (posted more than four months ago) closing as INVALID.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread