From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 4A0D1395C876; Wed,  9 Sep 2020 15:01:55 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4A0D1395C876
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1599663715;
 bh=+v6rvU5TwNzyl0xFDVAiecZiOWNINmn2p7Uc6iREpz0=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=T+HMJu6CTbESN3wrg+goIXHGCg0Aigwdg0QDRGSI+WaSWy6vfTEU4LbnHFaWRjoIF
 JnSwqUyOZvPsmei4tUNP937+C4rsxDiY5DQyyUaI7z0G/fYcaRyUGVttdRfWUg81dt
 cbqP4OsDFObB8cbN2DQtbJ2iEg8pmdVWSViesqcM=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/96983] [11 regression] ICE compiling
 gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 starting with r11-3042
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:01:54 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-96983-4-vkACS9XFHo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96983-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96983-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:01:55 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96983

--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot U=
ni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #6)
>> The test also FAIL on 64-bit SPARC with an ICE/SEGV:
>>=20
>> 0x67606b build_round_expr
>>         /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:408
>
> That's:
>
>       arg =3D fold_convert (gfc_float128_type_node, arg);
>
> Can you find out what gfc_float128_type_node is on SPARC,

I find

Thread 2 received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 1 (LWP 1)]
0x008edab4 in fold_convert_loc (loc=3D0, type=3D<tree 0x0>, arg=3D<optimize=
d out>)
    at /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/fold-const.c:2404
2404      if (TREE_CODE (arg) =3D=3D ERROR_MARK
(gdb) p gfc_float128_type_node
$1 =3D <tree 0x0>
(gdb) up
#1  0x0067606c in build_round_expr (restype=3D
    <integer_type 0xfb9f8600 integer(kind=3D16)>, arg=3D<var_decl 0xfa86bd9=
0 x>)
    at /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:408
408           arg =3D fold_convert (gfc_float128_type_node, arg);
(gdb) p gfc_float128_type_node
$2 =3D <tree 0x0>

> and why the conversion fails?

I've not the slightest idea how to do that.

> There's apparently a real kind with mode_precision >=3D 128,
> so we have to find out what it is, and if we can convert to it.

I'd expect that's long double, which is IEEE128 on SPARC.=