Hi Christophe,

I cannot see anything wrong with the optimized code and valgrind gives
a clean bill of health on x86_64.

We need help of somebody with access to an arm/aarch64 device.

Cheers

Paul

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 14:37, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 13:05, Paul Richard Thomas
> <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> > I'll have a think about this tonight. Is valgrind or some similar
> > available for arm/aarch64?
>
> Yes, valgrind is available. I don't know if it's installed on the
> machines in the GCC computer farm though.
>
> Christophe
>
>
> >
> > Many thanks for flagging it up.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 10:07, Christophe Lyon
> > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 18:25, Andrew Benson <aben...@carnegiescience.edu> 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Paul for the quick fix!
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, June 8, 2019 4:56:46 PM PDT Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > > > > Committed as obvious in revision 272084.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem was that the lhs symbol itself was not being checked as a
> > > > > proc_pointer - just the expression component.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will get on with backporting tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-06-08  Paul Thomas  <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > >
> > > > >     PR fortran/90786
> > > > >     * trans-expr.c (pointer_assignment_is_proc_pointer) Remove as
> > > > >     it is very simple and only called from one place.
> > > > >     (gfc_trans_pointer_assignment): Rename non_proc_pointer_assign
> > > > >     as non_proc_ptr_assign. Assign to it directly, rather than call
> > > > >     to above, deleted function and use gfc_expr_attr instead of
> > > > >     only checking the reference chain.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-06-08  Paul Thomas  <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > >
> > > > >     PR fortran/90786
> > > > >     * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 : New test.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've noticed that this new test fails on arm/aarch64:
> > > FAIL:gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90   -O2  execution test
> > > FAIL:gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90   -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> > > -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions  execution
> > > test
> > > FAIL:gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90   -O3 -g  execution test
> > >
> > > the logs say:
> > > Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory 
> > > reference.
> > >
> > > Backtrace for this error:
> > > #0  0xffffa938f66b in ???
> > > #1  0x0 in ???
> > >
> > > Christophe
> > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > * Andrew Benson: 
> > > > http://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/abenson/contact.html
> > > >
> > > > * Galacticus: https://bitbucket.org/galacticusdev/galacticus
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
> > - Albert Einstein



-- 
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
- Albert Einstein

Reply via email to