From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FB7E3858C83; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 21:48:07 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6FB7E3858C83 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmx.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmx.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1682286485; i=anlauf@gmx.de; bh=UTf46W6/YSYdAUr3bweMqZGXEV3GxalQ3j4rDYYuwiM=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=fYEETrofJyT3bpNim0Q24o5Rxt4sCHBiQGj73lNWGOSSuZHVLwNC8NWiJ3R1rEuwN IHwwsuOrh4W52Uo1Y1mM3kmISKQ1FRXiVOlZB4w0ndM0PNkt7k3s3Y5fSh0bwACppD +5RWuEChD2fLNMpiPR2LYveVJDslNnop+DOgnR0rIcWtikWtj6zl09RKvvrL1bNqpx voWTVlUlNUv7NPwJHU2Ej4B3J261ZbzqRI1U8hdVjwsFs167H2Aigjs5AR69dJdKSS A0RDrnoZXAeW4TeAXgBX436plsj16CNM9jCH3zJFttLYwrMkylNw7LdtDt6Cpu02T9 OsxpWbEIqKKzw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [192.168.178.29] ([79.251.15.124]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N7zBR-1qLgYA0bDv-0153HU; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:48:05 +0200 Message-ID: <27ee85f7-f52b-9b41-377a-9d025ddadbee@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:48:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.1 Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PRs 105152, 100193, 87946, 103389, 104429 and 82774 To: Paul Richard Thomas , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches,gmane.comp.gcc.fortran References: Content-Language: en-US From: Harald Anlauf In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:MTGLl3ilyQLp3rFDoSwnAzyxRJbyz6KdmVJs190vdEWxKxtll4r x7UnIBjIXMRbjGsNArUMVAXPFHnBcFe/lhpRJeCru7GuWiq0Yu/AHDJxClg0StEIDVmQepx F/r9Y9EPW3yvBxtDL7J4HrFPb/ZwSUy8C1J7SyuJdOlP1z/j8Xew5n6hMTYzki2lK0jzQcV C5hMupurXSBlG40N91ykw== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Ij+xPXgMK7Y=;wFjFymN/1ZalQLvgsqXpYzpJUb+ ZqEFf7GveDj93kkDIZz7/IwuoSkB7at5Z/iH5Cjh2MKN3Z6bC2jKth8TM+4Yxw8bAj2b4uVnW gdHRcQxguQx18BXorwsELmUPyTnU8m6SRjgxmbD2ZoRK79q0djRROyR2AgIZMbYF8Prun974t dFFGmBT7nKsqx4j/k8x0wlhNbFHuYAzCSBjhwNZifVtn0IRglPSpLTP+7Ai1y1NmMLng9hP8/ ZxkXzHZCxqtx9QG8q62H6Pb9n+WQ/dYAFhAQc50uttS4ciZJA6NeHPeBLbRUsPd0yzHbNs+pV B25OctEHXdBvdMPXiaOdAhNh//+d0YFb9CfPMfET1e6+2ezz0a9RY8kU4KauaOeTGV4Rq0uXc LKh5iKemGSDJv+Bf0cMG/mL9jjWHnQqoestU5xyzxGI8vXy+r9yLMFvbvLmv8KrIbphMbN5NA 2RyCofTDoPjzBPyo3zd4B9zwBqT1VNQcRy5HBlw2JbVEUm8+jB3gbPhiqK7QHNb4m0bdxYl13 KJWgkMhk+b7TCGPch3ufSWaXtyApCrV3BWZH6pOAEsd/uU/4dLUOCHCk1kxeXuuTLzCr+P0PI n787Dib/9xzzaVfdYQ8GdvDoV6dym5TJ+IDQtbRwOj/x5B7rcqTyFbp02FOAC+n7QA0EzM/Y0 v1MD3fSqmzCo3ed6wDt22sJAtwUzbWNxNfxRMSQO7C3ufyjvjWCHO4AeOz6p/amRyuTcQz4+Q 4I7ClQEk6cXpcINXyLw4Dbj4lF3ebwKgvg9cExLsKo/xMGke/ZXYQ/hcg63EfLyQu44mVUFfL FTdLydVWy/DbSdX8VCRYwP9OLqMyy6LklYcXNswnxBEI3jSNgU9BG74Xj/0aCZHcycwOjHmxr +9k4dAXKMEnF/nCmqo6T99Ln86AVqgWBoJYTdBR4bWR5w4MbqUUBexjMFvyq0lyWxb3X0KJk5 sm+5m01t9PXot6E3w7tVQ8kuDlk= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Paul, Am 22.04.23 um 10:32 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches: > Hi All, > > As usual, I received a string of emails on retargeting for PRs for which= I > was either responsible or was on the cc list. This time I decided to tak= e a > look at them all, in order to reward the tireless efforts of Richi, Jaku= b > and Martin with some attention at least. > > I have fixed the PRs in the title line: See the attached changelog, patc= h > and testcases. > > OK for 14-branch? the patch looks essentially good to me. Can you please have a look at testcase pr100193.f90, which fails for me because the module file is not generated and there is no corresponding dg-pattern: FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr100193.f90 -O (test for excess errors) =3D=3D=3D gfortran Summary =3D=3D=3D # of expected passes 1 # of unexpected failures 1 You could either simply omit the main program or add a pattern. (The shortened testcase would still fail w/o the patch.) > Of the others: > PR100815 - fixed already for 12-branch on. Martin located the fix from > Tobias, for which thanks. It's quite large but has stood the test of tim= e. > Should I backport to 11-branch? > PR103366 - fixed on 12-branch on. I closed it. > PR103715 - might be fixed but the report is for gcc with checking enable= d. > I will give that a go. > PR103716 - a gimple problem with assumed shape characters. A TODO. > PR103931 - I couldn't reproduce the bug, which involves 'ambiguous c_ptr= '. > To judge by the comments, it seems that this bug is a bit elusive. > PR65381 - Seems to be fixed for 12-branch on > PR82064 - Seems to be fixed. > PR83209 - Coarray allocation - seems to be fixed. > PR84244 - Coarray segfault. I have no acquaintance with the inner works = of > coarrays and so don't think that I can fix this one. > PR87674 - Segfault in runtime with non-overridable proc-pointer. A TODO. > PR96087 - A module procedure problem. A TODO. > > I have dejagnu-ified testcases for the already fixed PRs ready to go. > Should these be committed or do we assume that the fixes already provide= d > adequate tests? I think this depends. A testcase that is "sufficiently orthogonal" to those in the testsuite may be worth to be added. Otherwise randomly adding testcases might just increase the runtime for regression testing, which could be counter-productive for the development process. So better really decide on a case-by-case basis? (Of course this is only my opinion, and other may have a different view upon this.) I checked PR100815. The testcase in comment#0 appears to work for me for all open branches (10 to 14). The commit that supposedly fixed the issue applies to 12-branch and newer. Either there is something else in 11-branch which fixed it in a different way, or the bisecting unfortunately pointed to the wrong commit. And since there is no traceback information in the PR, I am simply confused. So do you think this testcase improves coverage and thus adds value? PR103715: with valgrind I get invalid reads, so I guess there is something lurking here and it only appears to be fixed. PR103931: it is indeed a bit elusive, but very sensitive to code changes. Also Bernhard had a look at it. Given that there are a couple of bugs related to module reading, and rename-on-use, I'd recommend to leave that open for further analysis. PR65381: works for me even on 11-branch. I think this looks very much like a duplicate of a PR that was fixed by Tobias. Still fails on 10-branch, but might not be worth fixing there. Simply close it as 10-only? PR103716: I think that one is interesting, as there are a couple of PRs involving inquiry functions. > Regards > > Paul Cheers, Harald From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 838493858C50 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 21:48:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 838493858C50 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmx.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=m.gmane-mx.org Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pqhZ2-000ASK-A3 for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:48:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Harald Anlauf Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PRs 105152, 100193, 87946, 103389, 104429 and 82774 Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 23:48:03 +0200 Message-ID: <27ee85f7-f52b-9b41-377a-9d025ddadbee@gmx.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.1 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Message-ID: <20230423214803.bi071wu0wLQaIYPSjC8tlU1-yQ8un6CXRjypwRLu8jg@z> Hi Paul, Am 22.04.23 um 10:32 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches: > Hi All, > > As usual, I received a string of emails on retargeting for PRs for which I > was either responsible or was on the cc list. This time I decided to take a > look at them all, in order to reward the tireless efforts of Richi, Jakub > and Martin with some attention at least. > > I have fixed the PRs in the title line: See the attached changelog, patch > and testcases. > > OK for 14-branch? the patch looks essentially good to me. Can you please have a look at testcase pr100193.f90, which fails for me because the module file is not generated and there is no corresponding dg-pattern: FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr100193.f90 -O (test for excess errors) === gfortran Summary === # of expected passes 1 # of unexpected failures 1 You could either simply omit the main program or add a pattern. (The shortened testcase would still fail w/o the patch.) > Of the others: > PR100815 - fixed already for 12-branch on. Martin located the fix from > Tobias, for which thanks. It's quite large but has stood the test of time. > Should I backport to 11-branch? > PR103366 - fixed on 12-branch on. I closed it. > PR103715 - might be fixed but the report is for gcc with checking enabled. > I will give that a go. > PR103716 - a gimple problem with assumed shape characters. A TODO. > PR103931 - I couldn't reproduce the bug, which involves 'ambiguous c_ptr'. > To judge by the comments, it seems that this bug is a bit elusive. > PR65381 - Seems to be fixed for 12-branch on > PR82064 - Seems to be fixed. > PR83209 - Coarray allocation - seems to be fixed. > PR84244 - Coarray segfault. I have no acquaintance with the inner works of > coarrays and so don't think that I can fix this one. > PR87674 - Segfault in runtime with non-overridable proc-pointer. A TODO. > PR96087 - A module procedure problem. A TODO. > > I have dejagnu-ified testcases for the already fixed PRs ready to go. > Should these be committed or do we assume that the fixes already provided > adequate tests? I think this depends. A testcase that is "sufficiently orthogonal" to those in the testsuite may be worth to be added. Otherwise randomly adding testcases might just increase the runtime for regression testing, which could be counter-productive for the development process. So better really decide on a case-by-case basis? (Of course this is only my opinion, and other may have a different view upon this.) I checked PR100815. The testcase in comment#0 appears to work for me for all open branches (10 to 14). The commit that supposedly fixed the issue applies to 12-branch and newer. Either there is something else in 11-branch which fixed it in a different way, or the bisecting unfortunately pointed to the wrong commit. And since there is no traceback information in the PR, I am simply confused. So do you think this testcase improves coverage and thus adds value? PR103715: with valgrind I get invalid reads, so I guess there is something lurking here and it only appears to be fixed. PR103931: it is indeed a bit elusive, but very sensitive to code changes. Also Bernhard had a look at it. Given that there are a couple of bugs related to module reading, and rename-on-use, I'd recommend to leave that open for further analysis. PR65381: works for me even on 11-branch. I think this looks very much like a duplicate of a PR that was fixed by Tobias. Still fails on 10-branch, but might not be worth fixing there. Simply close it as 10-only? PR103716: I think that one is interesting, as there are a couple of PRs involving inquiry functions. > Regards > > Paul Cheers, Harald