From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20F63858C2F for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 07:49:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org F20F63858C2F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1662450559; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=TYJxuRXYPC4CQnVT4xEV92XgOyp9XqX43jFnhnCwsAY=; b=dZIBD0k+gVlF9xfrRzOgxObrocZBxXFQS80FD5zMzJjIYDf9L3qaRn+9GuIsQPMqCGadm/ 4JxW0HSWqoShVC7yjU/XzR/AEMrmuNwzosJsblM4TD/DisEi88DNW7g4uEX2GLefTpkSBc HKAkcq9dAMwuKC41of9DE30ILr+T5X4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-438-MNceEoDLP-S6bklfN6K-CA-1; Tue, 06 Sep 2022 03:49:16 -0400 X-MC-Unique: MNceEoDLP-S6bklfN6K-CA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 672193C0D187; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 07:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C1784C816; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 07:49:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 2867nDc72016767 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:49:13 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 2867nClF2016766; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:49:12 +0200 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:49:12 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Tobias Burnus Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [r13-2446 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) on Linux/x86_64 Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <202209052354.285Ns5071120234@shliclel314.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <202209052354.285Ns5071120234@shliclel314.sh.intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:54:05AM +0800, haochen.jiang via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Linux/x86_64, > > 938cda536019cd6a1bc0dd2346381185b420bbf8 is the first bad commit > commit 938cda536019cd6a1bc0dd2346381185b420bbf8 > Author: Tobias Burnus > Date: Mon Sep 5 18:05:24 2022 +0200 > > Fortran/openmp: Partial OpenMP 5.2 doacross and omp_cur_iteration support > > caused > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for errors, line 28) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for errors, line 42) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for errors, line 48) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for errors, line 55) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for errors, line 70) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for errors, line 82) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/doacross-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) Seems this is still being diagnosed in the FE when it should be deferred to the middle-end now (only when we find out if it is doacross or not). If you really want to diagnose it in the FE (and do the doacross discovery there too), I think the testcase needs to be split into 2, because the FE errors apparently result in the gimplifier or omp lowering not being done at all. Jakub