[Bug fortran/95918] New: gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[Bug fortran/95918] New: gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

            Bug ID: 95918
           Summary: gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE
                    architectures
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dje at gcc dot gnu.org
                CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org,
                    segher at gcc dot gnu.org
        Depends on: 95837
  Target Milestone: ---
            Target: powerpc64-linux, powerpc-ibm-aix, s390x-linux

The new gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 testcase fails on all big endian
targets.


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95837
[Bug 95837] derived-type components of character kind=4 – wrong code with
component access (kind=4 ignored)

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-06-26

--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The problem is in the scans; the code runs fine.

Does anybody have the dejagnu-fu to run the scans only on little-endian
systems?

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
{ target { le } }

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Or even just  { target le }  yes.  You can put that as the selector on just
the scan tests, and even do a separate BE version as well.

You can quote regexps with {} instead of "", that makes them much more
readable.  The regexps seem to use . where they mean a literal dot, too?
Won't matter too much of course.

! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "  \\(\\*var\\.str2\\)\\\[1\\\]{lb: 1 sz: 4} =
.d\\\\x00\\\\x00.\\\[1\\\]{lb: 1 sz: 4};" "original" } }

can become

! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {  \(\*var\.str2\)\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4} =
.d\\x00\\x00.\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4};} "original" { target le } } }

and whatever BE needs.

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 48794
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48794&action=edit
patch for the test case, skipping the test on big-endian targets

This implements Segher's suggestion to skip the test on big-endian.

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 48795
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48795&action=edit
Dump file on big-endian system

If anybody wants to do the magic for the patterns on big-endian systems,
here is the dump file to do it with.

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 95919 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It uses . where it wants to consume a quotation mark (").

Because the BE/LE difference is flipping characters, would it negate the
purpose of the test to check for one or zero characters?

! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {  \(\*var\.str2\)\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4} =
.d?\\x00\\x00d?.\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4};} "original" } }

In other words, test for the "d" or not at one end, and "d" or not at the other
end.

And the next test would become

! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "  __builtin_memmove \(\(void \*\) &\(\*var.
str2\)\[2\]{lb: 1 sz: 4}, \(void \*\\) &.e?\\x00\\x00\\x00[ef]\\x00
\\x00f?.\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4}, 8\);" "original" } }

Or is a possible failure that the endian was flipped?

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This set of regexps works for me:

! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {  \(\*var\.str2\)\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4} =
"(d\\x00\\x
00|\\x00\\x00\\x00d)"\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4};} "original" } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {  __builtin_memmove \(\(void \*\)
&\(\*var.str2\)
\[2\]{lb: 1 sz: 4}, \(void \*\)
&"(e\\x00\\x00\\x00f\\x00\\x00|\\x00\\x00\\x00e\
\x00\\x00\\x00f)"\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4}, 8\);} "original" } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {  \(\*var.str2\)\[4\]{lb: 1 sz: 4} =
"(\\x00\\xf6
\\x01|\\x00\\x01\\xf6)"\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4};} "original" } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {  \(\*var.str2\)\[5\]{lb: 1 sz: 4} =
"(\\b\\xf6\\
x01|\\x00\\x01\\xf6\\b)"\[1\]{lb: 1 sz: 4};} "original" } }

Okay?

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 48809
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48809&action=edit
Updated regex for either endianness

The new patch updates the regexps to accept the result for either endianness. 
And removes the extra quoting from the regexps.

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With the patch the testcase succeeds on both powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 (big
endian) and powerpc64-linux (little endian)

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #11)
> With the patch the testcase succeeds on both powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 (big
> endian) and powerpc64-linux (little endian)

OK for master and gcc-10 then (unless you prefer to commit this
as simple and obvious :-)

Thanks!

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Committed, but why gcc-10? I don't see the testcase on that branch.

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Because the version in bugzilla is set to 10.0, so I assumed it occurred there,
too.

Even better if it is not there.

[Bug fortran/95918] gfortran.dg/char4-subscript.f90 fails for BE architectures

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95918

David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #15 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed