From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17364 invoked by alias); 12 May 2011 16:40:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 17344 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2011 16:40:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx01.qsc.de (HELO mx01.qsc.de) (213.148.129.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 16:40:42 +0000 Received: from [192.168.178.22] (port-92-204-45-85.dynamic.qsc.de [92.204.45.85]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CBB3CF80; Thu, 12 May 2011 18:40:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DCC0D87.10500@net-b.de> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:04:00 -0000 From: Tobias Burnus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 SUSE/3.1.8 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Richard Thomas CC: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR48955 [4.6/4.7 Regression] Wrong result for array assignment due to missing temporary References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00920.txt.bz2 On 05/12/2011 05:46 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > This patch fixes the problem in two steps: > (i) It reverts r162289; and > (ii) It adds the correct initialization for loop.reverse[] in > gfc_trans_assignment_1. This was implemented incorrectly in the fix > for PR24524 (in spite of the correct comment in dependency.c!) and > removed at sometime, I do not know why. > Bootstraps and regtests on x86_64/FC9. OK for trunk and 4.6? Looks OK - unless Thomas has objections. I would prefer if you could credit Kacper Kowalik for the example - he reported it on IRC (and CCed himself to the PR after I reported it.) I only relayed the example and did some minor analysis. Tobias PS: Regarding regressions, I think gfortran is doing fine - ignoring the restricted pointer PR 45586. What are your next plans for gfortran? I wouldn't mind if you could fix PR 47674 - it always pops up as only testsuite failure when I regtest. Though, as the test case never worked, I am not sure whether one can classify it as regression or not. (You may need valgrind to reproduce the failure.) > 2011-05-12 Paul Thomas > > PR fortran/48955 > * dependency.c (gfc_dep_resolver): Revert r162829 which changed > the condition for setting this_dep to GFC_DEP_OVERLAP. > * trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_assignment_1): Enable loop reversal. > > 2011-05-12 Paul Thomas > > PR fortran/48955 > * gfortran.dg/dependency_40.f90 : New test.