[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-19 18:09 --- Well, I found that the TImode is getting introduced in layout_type. For an ARRAY_TYPE tree there is this line: TYPE_SIZE (type) = size_binop (MULT_EXPR, element_size, fold_convert (bitsizetype, length)); If you look at bitsizetype, you will find that it is TImode and thus the resulting expression is TImode. bitsizetype is set in set_sizetype based on 2 * BITS_PER_UNIT_LOG which is 64 for hppa64. Thus our problem. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #4 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-18 18:16 --- Looking at my old logs it looks like gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 has been failing on hppa64 since it first went in on April 21, 2006. Someone is creating a TImode variable even though hppa64 doesn't support them. I haven't been able to figure out who though. -- sje at cup dot hp dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at cup dot hp dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-10-18 18:51 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE) Looking at my old logs it looks like gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 has been failing on hppa64 since it first went in on April 21, 2006. Someone is creating a TImode variable even though hppa64 doesn't support them. I haven't been able to figure out who though. Right. I think figuring out who is creating the variable will help to understand and fix the bug. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-18 20:49 --- Well, I have tracked it back a little ways. gfc_trans_vla_type_sizes_1 calls gfc_trans_vla_one_sizepos with: gfc_trans_vla_one_sizepos (TYPE_SIZE (type), body); If I print out type-type.size I see: gdb) p debug_tree(type-type.size) save_expr 83ffbfe3d2c0 type integer_type 83ffbfdaa160 bit_size_type public unsigned sizetype T I size integer_cst 83ffbfd9fdb0 constant invariant 128 unit size integer_cst 83ffbfd9fde0 constant invariant 16 align 128 symtab 0 alias set -1 precision 68 min integer_cst 83ffbf db8000 0 max integer_cst 83ffbfd9ff00 0xf side-effects invariant So I have a TImode here. How it got here, I don't yet know. -- sje at cup dot hp dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-18 20:49:47 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-10-19 01:56 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE) So I have a TImode here. How it got here, I don't yet know. I checked that pa_scalar_mode_supported_p is called and rejects TImode, so it looks like a fortran problem. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-06 16:49 --- There seem to be more files now but they might be new tests. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-04/msg00445.html. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-28 13:22 --- (In reply to comment #1) John, Have all these errors just appeared or do they go back to the era of actual_array_constructor_1.f90; ie 04/04/06? The reason that I ask is that I am wondering if this is an incipient bug that is exposed by the fixes or if we are progressively adding fixes that are wrong in some way. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
[Bug fortran/28176] FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (ICE)
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-27 01:53 --- FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_substr_1.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_substr_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) WARNING: gfortran.dg/actual_array_substr_1.f90 -O0 compilation failed to produ ce executable fails in the some way. I guessing but probably the following also fail in the same way: FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_char_pointer_array_result_1.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_char_pointer_array_result_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess er rors) WARNING: gfortran.dg/auto_char_pointer_array_result_1.f90 -O0 compilation fail ed to produce executable FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_pointer_array_result_1.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error ) FAIL: gfortran.dg/auto_pointer_array_result_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) WARNING: gfortran.dg/auto_pointer_array_result_1.f90 -O0 compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gfortran.dg/character_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (internal compiler err or) FAIL: gfortran.dg/character_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess error s) WARNING: gfortran.dg/character_array_constructor_1.f90 -O0 compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr15324.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr15324.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) WARNING: gfortran.dg/pr15324.f90 -O0 compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr17612.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr17612.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) WARNING: gfortran.dg/pr17612.f90 -O0 compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/pr19269-1.f90, -O0 (internal compiler e rror) FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/strarray_3.f90, -O0 (internal compiler error) FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/strarray_4.f90, -O0 (internal compiler error) These fails are related to the libgomp fails noted in PR fortran/27885. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28176
