From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28008 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2010 12:23:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 27991 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jul 2010 12:23:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-fx0-f47.google.com) (209.85.161.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:23:52 +0000 Received: by fxm12 with SMTP id 12so2866861fxm.20 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.221.1 with SMTP id y1mr2203399muq.19.1278937429504; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.8.15 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C3AC918.5080701@net-b.de> References: <4C3AC918.5080701@net-b.de> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR4773 - [4.6 Regression] Unnecessary temporaries increase the runtime for channel.f90 by ~70% From: Paul Richard Thomas To: Tobias Burnus Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00960.txt.bz2 Dear Tobias, > I was wondering whether one should add a test case (-Warray-temporaries). That's not a bad idea. I was very reluctant to add any more testcases that test the tree-dump-original output. They tend to be a complete pain in the behind from the maintenance point of view. Will do! > > OK for the trunk - and for the branches, for which the array-temporary > fix has been applied to. I have gone back to 4.4. In the latter, I applied the array-temporary fix as well. For some reason, applying the overall patch to 4.3 throws up a number of very strange looking regressions. I am inclined to close the book on this if I cannot see a quick fix tonight. As I say elsewhere, the underlying bug has been present in gfortran for about ten years and it has only emerged now! Thanks Paul