[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-31 15:43 --- Subject: Bug 31832 Author: danglin Date: Wed Dec 31 15:42:12 2008 New Revision: 142984 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142984 Log: PR fortran/31832 * acinclude.m4 (LIBGFOR_CHECK_FOR_BROKEN_POWF): New autoconf check for broken powf. * configure.ac (LIBGFOR_CHECK_FOR_BROKEN_POWF): Use it. * intrinsics/c99_functions.c: Use internal powf implementation if HAVE_BROKEN_POWF is defined. * configure: Rebuilt. * config.h.in: Rebuilt. Modified: branches/gcc-4_3-branch/libgfortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_3-branch/libgfortran/acinclude.m4 branches/gcc-4_3-branch/libgfortran/config.h.in branches/gcc-4_3-branch/libgfortran/configure branches/gcc-4_3-branch/libgfortran/configure.ac branches/gcc-4_3-branch/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-31 15:43 --- Fixed. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #8 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 20:11 --- Subject: Bug 31832 Author: danglin Date: Mon Dec 29 20:10:00 2008 New Revision: 142952 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142952 Log: PR fortran/31832 * acinclude.m4 (LIBGFOR_CHECK_FOR_BROKEN_POWF): New autoconf check for broken powf. * configure.ac (LIBGFOR_CHECK_FOR_BROKEN_POWF): Use it. * intrinsics/c99_functions.c: Use internal powf implementation if HAVE_BROKEN_POWF is defined. * configure: Rebuilt. * config.h.in: Rebuilt. Modified: trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog trunk/libgfortran/acinclude.m4 trunk/libgfortran/config.h.in trunk/libgfortran/configure trunk/libgfortran/configure.ac trunk/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #7 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-28 16:22 --- Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00315.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-27 17:33 --- I agree with Steve that this is a HP math lib bug. For Steve's test program, we have the following code at -O1: fldw 0(%r3),%fr12R fcpy,sgl %fr12R,%fr4R fcpy,sgl %fr13R,%fr5R ldo -48(%r30),%r29 b,l powf,%r2 copy %r27,%r4 copy %r4,%r27 fstw %fr4R,-1176(%r30) fdiv,sgl %fr14R,%fr12R,%fr12R fmpy,sgl %fr12R,%fr12R,%fr12R fstw %fr12R,-1172(%r30) ldo -1176(%r30),%r26 ldo -48(%r30),%r29 b,l check_equal_r_,%r2 ldo -1172(%r30),%r25 Checking the value of fr12R before and after the call to powf, I see the values differ. The runtime specification states on page 14 that FRs 12-21 are preserved across calls. I think this bug can be worked around by providing powf in libgfortran on this target. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
-- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |org |dot org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
-- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2007-08-08 17:29:56 |2007-10-05 13:01:47 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-09 21:54 --- (In reply to comment #1) I have looked into this bug and I think it is an HP math lib bug. The 64 bit powf function is using %fr12R but not saving/restoring it the way it is supposed to. I have a query in to the math lib folks to see if they can verify my finding. Any results? I cannot reproduce this on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.31 (neither the original bug nor your testcase that gives different results depending on optimization level). -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |org |dot org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-08-09 23:30 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above Any results? I cannot reproduce this on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.31 (neither the original bug nor your testcase that gives different results depending on optimization level). To reproduce the original bug, you would need to build for hppa64-hp-hpux11.31 target. If you bootstrap with an HP compiler, you would need to add +DA2.0W to the stage1 CFLAGS. The two targets use different math libraries. The hppa64 problem was still present in my last build prior to the lroundl issue. Somewhere between August 4 and 8 bootstrap started to fail on this target. I also still see the fails mentioned in comment #3. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-08/msg00236.html This might be a different bug. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
-- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-08-08 17:29:42 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
-- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2007-08-08 17:29:42 |2007-08-08 17:29:56 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-07 15:09 --- I don't know. I haven't been able to bootstrap hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 since the dataflow merge. The following two tests are failing on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 (revision 126397): FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funrol l-loops execution test FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funrol l-all-loops -finline-functions execution test -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-06 08:45 --- To implement PR32239, integer exponention was changed recently: 2007-07-01 Janne Blomqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR fortran/32239 * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_power_op): Use builtin_powi for real**int4 powers. * f95-lang.c (gfc_init_builtin_functions): Add builtin_powi to the builtins table. By any chance, does it make any differences for this testcase? -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31832
[Bug fortran/31832] FAIL: gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_2.f90 at -O1 and above
--- Comment #1 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2007-06-07 22:47 --- I have looked into this bug and I think it is an HP math lib bug. The 64 bit powf function is using %fr12R but not saving/restoring it the way it is supposed to. I have a query in to the math lib folks to see if they can verify my finding. Here is a smaller test case that prints different values at -O1 or -O2 than at -O0. program test real a call run_me (-1.1, -1) a = -1.1 end program test subroutine run_me(a, i) implicit none real, intent(in) :: a integer, intent(in) :: i print *, a**-2.0 print *, (1/a)*(1/a) call check_equal_r (a**-2.0, (1/a)*(1/a)) end subroutine run_me subroutine check_equal_r (a, b) real, intent(in) :: a, b print *, a print *, b end subroutine check_equal_r -- 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=31832
