From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108919 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2019 14:49:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 108728 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2019 14:48:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=Regarding, H*i:sk:cec2e16, H*f:sk:cec2e16, H*MI:sk:cec2e16 X-HELO: us-smtp-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) (207.211.31.120) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:48:43 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1572014919; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:openpgp:openpgp:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=pFciMJ5Fwo0XAmAYxBExx/KSAehxWa1d5kzVQdzWsk0=; b=F5ZCjmD54yTMSzp1C9h3ruzmh0yUiqKZNPQmygMF6tff3y1pRPL+NzldczepRfROUsWyq6 4mNaZXuRyUQ1hSEroPqOLX+dtluV7lvbBye3MScYMpUraAwGS/9kQ2W9SlDmhf1VSjmb2S PiIMEJl0BTzZ66nhYs2AXBXdSszu7cc= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-127-qJYzWLDQNHODoLFNJoelxw-1; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:48:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C0AB1800DA8; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-8.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.8]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E056194B6; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:48:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Optionally suppress no-automatic overwrites recursive warning - for approval To: Tobias Burnus , Tobias Burnus , Mark Eggleston , gcc-patches , fortran References: <5757e425-1980-f148-b870-6d93cfc41916@codethink.co.uk> <1a2484a7-4157-1639-cb3d-ec8494d05d9e@codesourcery.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <73176068-899a-7e72-0357-0998fcec9382@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg01846.txt.bz2 On 10/25/19 7:54 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Hi Jeff, >=20 > On 10/25/19 3:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> So across Fedora the BOZ stuff tripped 2-3 packages. In comparison the >> function argument stuff broke 30-40 packages, many of which still >> don't build without -fallow-argument-mismatch. >=20 > Regarding the latter: > The initial patch was too strict =E2=80=93 an also rejected valid code > (according to the Fortran 2018 standard). That was my understanding from loosely following the threads. That has been fixed.* =E2=80=93 Thus, > either some valid cases were missed (gfortran bug) or all those packages > indeed have an argument mismatch. >=20 > *That fix is: 2019-10-14 / r276972 / PR fortran/92004 / > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-10/msg00128.html Yea. That patch certainly helped lapack and others. >=20 > Do you know whether those 30=E2=80=9340 packages have code bugs or could = there > be gfortran bugs (too strict checking) lurking? I'm not familiar enough with the issue & packages to know if they're cases of source bugs or gfortran being too strict. My plan has always been to extract a few cases and pass them along for that kind of analysis. I've just been too busy lately with other regressions :( A partial list of the affected packages: R-deldir R atlas cgnslib cp2k elk elpa exciting ga getdata grib_api hdf libccp4 mpich hwchem psblas3 qrmumps qrupdate quantum-espresso scalapack scipy scorep wannier90 wsjtx xfoil xrotor There's certainly more, that list just represents those I've locally worked around with -fallow-argument-mismatch. Several more trigger the mismatch error, but I haven't bothered working around yet. That list comes from _after_ the Oct 14 patch to correct issues in the argument mismatch testing. >=20 >=20 > Regarding the BOZ: One difference to the argument mismatch is that the > latter has an option to still accept it (-fallow-argument-mismatch) and > potentially generates wrong code =E2=80=93 depending what the ME does wit= h the > mismatches =E2=80=93 while the former, once parsed, causes no potential ME > problems and as there is no flag, it always requires code changes. (On > the other hand, fixing the BOZ issue is straight forward; argument > changes are trickier.) Absolutely. That's the primary reason why I haven't contacted the affected package maintainers yet -- I don't want them blindly adding -fallow-argument-mismatch to their flags. Jeff