[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669 --- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-11 00:17:38 UTC --- Author: hubicka Date: Thu Nov 11 00:17:34 2010 New Revision: 166579 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166579 Log: PR tree-optimize/38669 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr38699.c Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr38699.c Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #13 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 21:12 --- Fixed on trunk(4.4) and 4.3. Thanks for the report! -- mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #12 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 20:53 --- Subject: Bug 38669 Author: mikael Date: Wed Jan 14 20:53:18 2009 New Revision: 143383 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143383 Log: 2009-01-14 Mikael Morin PR fortran/35681 * ChangeLog: Fix function name. PR fortran/38487 * dependency.c (gfc_check_argument_var_dependency): Move the check for pointerness inside the if block so that it doesn't affect the return value. PR fortran/38669 * trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_call): Add the dependency code after the loop bounds calculation one. 2009-01-14 Mikael Morin PR fortran/38669 * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90: New test. * gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90: New test. Added: branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90 branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90 Modified: branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/dependency.c branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 23:01 --- Huh, the regression state of this bug looks weird. So we have a patch applied on trunk, but known-to-fail is both 4.3.3 and 4.4.0 - but 4.3.2 works? And the target milestone is 4.4.0? If it is really a regression on the branch (4.3.3 vs. 4.3.2) it definitely should be 4.3.3. Changed as such, to get on the radar for 4.3.3 again. Please adjust known-to-work and known-to-fail accordingly. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.0 |4.3.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #10 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-06 21:57 --- Subject: Bug 38669 Author: mikael Date: Tue Jan 6 21:57:19 2009 New Revision: 143134 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143134 Log: 2009-01-06 Mikael Morin PR fortran/38669 * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90: Add the final tree dump cleanup. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #9 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 18:44 --- Subject: Bug 38669 Author: mikael Date: Mon Jan 5 18:44:09 2009 New Revision: 143084 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143084 Log: 2009-01-05 Mikael Morin PR fortran/38669 PR fortran/38726 * gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90: Fix p values so that it can be used as vector subscript. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #8 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 13:37 --- (In reply to comment #7) It caused PR 38726 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #7 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 19:12 --- Subject: Bug 38669 Author: mikael Date: Sun Jan 4 19:12:16 2009 New Revision: 143057 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143057 Log: 2009-01-04 Mikael Morin PR fortran/35681 * ChangeLog-2008: Fix function name. PR fortran/38487 * dependency.c (gfc_check_argument_var_dependency): Move the check for pointerness inside the if block so that it doesn't affect the return value. PR fortran/38669 * trans-stmt.c (gfc_trans_call): Add the dependency code after the loop bounds calculation one. 2009-01-04 Mikael Morin PR fortran/38669 * gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90: New test. * gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_3.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_7.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog-2008 trunk/gcc/fortran/dependency.c trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #6 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:40 --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Created an attachment (id=17016) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016&action=view) [edit] > > fix > > > > Does anyone know the use of the block variable I remove in this patch? > > > > Yes indeed. When I wrote this function, this block of code needed to be > merged > as the comments says: > /* Generate the temporary. Merge the block so that the > declarations are put at the right binding level. */ > > The second sentence needs to go in your patch:-) > > What I have no recall of is why the block had to be merged. I believe that it > was conditional on the intent of the argument. That's not what I was asking, sorry. I'll try to be clearer. The block variable seems to hold nothing. 271gfc_start_block (&block); 272tmp = gfc_typenode_for_spec (&e->ts); 273tmp = gfc_trans_create_temp_array (&se->pre, &se->post, 274 &tmp_loop, info, tmp, 275 false, true, false); 276gfc_add_modify_expr (&se->pre, size, tmp); 277tmp = fold_convert (pvoid_type_node, info->data); 278gfc_add_modify_expr (&se->pre, data, tmp); 279gfc_merge_block_scope (&block); The above is your initial commit. As gfc_trans_create_temp_array is putting his code in se->pre and se->post, it looks like no code goes to the block variable which is useless then. Or do I miss something? This is largely off-topic though. It is just something I wondered when I looked at the code. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-31 10:47 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Created an attachment (id=17016) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016&action=view) [edit] > fix > > Does anyone know the use of the block variable I remove in this patch? > Yes indeed. When I wrote this function, this block of code needed to be merged as the comments says: /* Generate the temporary. Merge the block so that the declarations are put at the right binding level. */ The second sentence needs to go in your patch:-) What I have no recall of is why the block had to be merged. I believe that it was conditional on the intent of the argument. Cheers Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #4 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 16:45 --- Created an attachment (id=17016) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016&action=view) fix Does anyone know the use of the block variable I remove in this patch? -- mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mikael at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #3 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 15:02 --- At revision 142760, there is no temporary, so there is no bug. That's something I missed in my patch, that's true. The bug is still there however. Change this: call tq_tvgh (var_f% av (k_lev:,1), p(k_lev:)) to this: call tq_tvgh (var_f% av (k_lev:,1), (p(k_lev:))) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #2 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 14:04 --- without derived types: program gfcbu84_main ! use gfcbug84 implicit none integer :: jplev, k_lev real :: p(42) real, pointer :: q(:) jplev = 42 k_lev = 1 allocate (q(jplev)) call tq_tvgh (q(k_lev:), p(k_lev:)) contains elemental subroutine tq_tvgh (t, p) real ,intent (out):: t real ,intent (in) :: p t=p end subroutine tq_tvgh end program gfcbu84_main The bound temporaries (D.1559,D.1560) are used before being defined. integer(kind=8) D.1560; integer(kind=8) D.1559; integer(kind=8) D.1558; real(kind=4)[0:] * D.1557; D.1563 = (integer(kind=8)) k_lev; D.1564 = q.dim[0].ubound; parm.2.dtype = 281; D.1566 = q.dim[0].stride; parm.2.dim[0].lbound = 1; parm.2.dim[0].ubound = (1 - D.1563) + D.1564; parm.2.dim[0].stride = NON_LVALUE_EXPR ; parm.2.data = (void *) &(*(real(kind=4)[0:] *) q.data)[(D.1563 - q.dim[0].lbound) * D.1566]; parm.2.offset = 0; D.1569 = D.1560 - D.1559; atmp.3.dtype = 281; atmp.3.dim[0].stride = 1; atmp.3.dim[0].lbound = 0; atmp.3.dim[0].ubound = D.1569; (...) D.1559 = (integer(kind=8)) k_lev; D.1560 = q.dim[0].ubound; My commit is probably the culprit (what else?), but I don't understand how it could be. -- mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 11:55 --- Maybe: r142766 | mikael | 2008-12-15 19:08:42 +0100 (Mon, 15 Dec 2008) | 14 lines Added Mikael as CC. -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot ||org, mikael dot morin at ||tele2 dot fr http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
[Bug fortran/38669] [4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array bounds violation for arguments of elemental subroutine
-- tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail||4.3.3 4.4.0 Known to work||4.3.2 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-12-30 11:17:36 date|| Summary|[Regression] Array bounds |[4.3, 4.4 Regression] Array |violation for arguments of |bounds violation for |elemental subroutine|arguments of elemental ||subroutine http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38669
