[Bug fortran/67818] New: [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[Bug fortran/67818] New: [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

            Bug ID: 67818
           Summary: [5 Regression] FAIL:
                    libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

On Linux/ia32, r228361 gave:

FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-2.f90   -O0  execution test
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-2.f90   -O2  execution test
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-3.f90   -O0  execution test
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-3.f90   -O2  execution test

r228313 is OK.

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-10-02
                 CC|                            |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.3
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
It is caused r228339.

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
memcpy was fixed by Andre at r222477 on trunk.
I think it fixes the regression, but I'm a little uncomfortable with
backporting it, because of its medium size.
So the question is whether r222477 should be backported, or r228361 reverted.

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> So the question is whether r222477 should be backported, or r228361 reverted.

I have looked at the r222477 patch more in details, and it seems reasonable
after all.
Moreover, Paul suggested a backport when he approved it.
So I think I'll go the backport route.
HJL, can you confirm it fixes the problem?

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> > So the question is whether r222477 should be backported, or r228361 reverted.
> 
> I have looked at the r222477 patch more in details, and it seems reasonable
> after all.
> Moreover, Paul suggested a backport when he approved it.
> So I think I'll go the backport route.
> HJL, can you confirm it fixes the problem?

Do you have a patch I can try?

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Do you have a patch I can try?

See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00110.html.

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
> I have looked at the r222477 patch more in details, and it seems reasonable
> after all.
> Moreover, Paul suggested a backport when he approved it.
> So I think I'll go the backport route.
> HJL, can you confirm it fixes the problem?

Yes, r222477 fixed the regression on gcc-5-branch without any new
testsuite failures.

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Oct 18 15:01:03 2015
New Revision: 228945

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
        PR fortran/67721
        PR fortran/67818
        Backport from mainline r222477:

        2015-04-27  Andre Vehreschild  <vehre@gmx.de>

        PR fortran/59678
        PR fortran/65841
gcc/fortran/
        * trans-array.c (duplicate_allocatable): Fixed deep copy of
        allocatable components, which are liable for copy only, when
        they are allocated.
        (gfc_duplicate_allocatable): Add deep-copy code into if
        component allocated block. Needed interface change for that.
        (gfc_copy_allocatable_data): Supplying NULL_TREE for code to
        add into if-block for checking whether a component was
        allocated.
        (gfc_duplicate_allocatable_nocopy): Likewise.
        (structure_alloc_comps): Likewise.
        * trans-array.h: Likewise.
        * trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_alloc_subarray_assign): Likewise.
        * trans-openmp.c (gfc_walk_alloc_comps): Likewise.
gcc/testsuite/
        * gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_deep_copy_1.f03: New test.
        * gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_deep_copy_2.f03: New test.


Added:
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_deep_copy_1.f03
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_deep_copy_2.f03
Modified:
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-array.h
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c
    branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/67818] [5 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-[23].f90

[mikael at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818

Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Yes, r222477 fixed the regression on gcc-5-branch without any new
> testsuite failures.

The patch has been backported.
Closing.