[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

Thomas Koenig  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig  ---
No ill effects on gcc-testresults, seems to work.

Thanks for the report and for the suggestion on how to fix it.

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig  ---
Let's keep this open to see if any platform develops a regression
with the fix.

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig  ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 12 20:51:16 2018
New Revision: 257605

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257605=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-02-12  Thomas Koenig  

PR fortran/68746
* gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90: Re-add dg-do run.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig  ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 12 20:48:32 2018
New Revision: 257604

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257604=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-02-12  Thomas Koenig  

PR fortran/68746
* gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90: Remove xfails. Also allow iostat
of zero for read.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-01-31 3:17 AM, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is there anything than can be done to debug this?
> What happens if you compile the test with -g and
> run it under a debgger?
It's not easy.  It turns out the "system" call causes gdb to crash. 
Working around that,
we have at the end of data_transfer_init:

Breakpoint 34, data_transfer_init (dtp=0x83fffdff0ad0,
 read_flag=) at 
../../../gcc/libgfortran/io/transfer.c:3201
3201  if ((cf & (IOPARM_DT_LIST_FORMAT | 
IOPARM_DT_HAS_NAMELIST_NAME)) == 0
(gdb) p cf
$7 = 128
(gdb) p *dtp
$8 = {common = {flags = 128, unit = 6,
 filename = 0x40001860 "read_dir.f90", line = 10,
 iomsg_len = 9223376434867631712, iomsg = 0x83fffdfedbf8 "\200",
 iostat = 0x83fffdff0acc}, rec = 0, size = 0x9,
   iolength = 0x40001870, internal_unit_desc = 0x0,
   format = 0x400018a0  "", format_len = 6,
   advance_len = 4611686018427394176,
   advance = 0x1 ,
   internal_unit = 0x0, internal_unit_len = 9223376434866410515,
   namelist_name_len = 9223376434866047520,
   namelist_name = 0x4 , id 
= 0x0,
   pos = 4, asynchronous = 0x40001888 "read", asynchronous_len = 0,
   blank_len = 0, blank = 0x83fffdff07b0 "\200",
   decimal = 0x83fffde64a20 "\200", decimal_len = 3,
   delim_len = 9223376434866032944, delim = 0x83fffdff0b10 "@",
   pad = 0x318 , pad_len = 1,
   round_len = 0, round = 0x0,
   sign = 0x83fffdda4293  "\301\210\034 
\030S\302>\241S\334?\001\350@\320", sign_len = 281479271677959, u = {p = {
   transfer = 0x83fffde62260, current_unit = 0x8001a518,
   item_count = 0, mode = WRITING, blank_status = BLANK_NULL,
   sign_status = SIGN_UNSPECIFIED, scale_factor = 0, max_pos = 0,
   skips = 0, pending_spaces = 0, sf_seen_eor = 0,
---Type  to continue, or q  to quit---
   advance_status = ADVANCE_YES, reversion_flag = 0, first_item = 1,
   seen_dollar = 0, eor_condition = 0, no_leading_blank = 0, 
char_flag = 0,
   input_complete = 0, at_eol = 0, comma_flag = 0, namelist_mode = 0,
   nml_read_error = 0, sf_read_comma = 0, line_buffer_enabled = 0,
   unit_is_internal = 0, at_eof = 0, g0_no_blanks = 0,
   format_not_saved = 0, expanded_read = 0, child_saved_iostat = 0,
   nml_delim = 0, repeat_count = 0, saved_length = 0, saved_used = 0,
   saved_type = BT_UNKNOWN, saved_string = 0x0, scratch = 0x0,
   line_buffer = 0x0, fmt = 0x0, ionml = 0x0, line_buffer_pos = 0,
   value = '\000' , not_used = 0, fdtio_ptr = 0x0,
   ufdtio_ptr = 0x0, cc = {type = 0, len = 0, u = {start = 0 '\000',
   end = 0 '\000'}}},
 pad = 
"\200\000\003\377\375\346\"`\200\000\000\001\000\000\245\030\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\001\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\003",
 
'\000' , "@", '\000' ...}}

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

Thomas Koenig  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |NEW
 CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig  ---
Is there anything than can be done to debug this?
What happens if you compile the test with -g and
run it under a debgger?

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-01-26 8:57 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
>
> --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2018-01-26 8:29 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>> By the xfail? Can the PR be closed?
> I'll have to investigate...
The test still fails with gcc-8 for the same reason as reported in the 
PR, so no.

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-01-26 8:29 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> By the xfail? Can the PR be closed?
I'll have to investigate...

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
> I don't have a recent gcc-6 set of test results but the bug is fixed in 
> gcc-7 and gcc-8.

By the xfail? Can the PR be closed?

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I don't have a recent gcc-6 set of test results but the bug is fixed in 
gcc-7 and gcc-8.

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |WAITING

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
What is the status of this PR?

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

John David Anglin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa*-*-hpux*
 Status|WAITING |NEW
   Host|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa*-*-hpux*
  Build|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa*-*-*

--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin  ---
Going to xfail on hppa*-*-hpux*.  Already xfailed are:
*-*-freebsd* *-*-dragonfly* powerpc-ibm-aix*

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin  ---
Test fails on hpux because ios has the value 0 after following read:

   read(10, iostat=ios) c

It would pass if check was:

   if ((ios.ne.21).and.(ios.ne.0)) then

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin  ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Feb 14 16:29:08 2016
New Revision: 233412

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233412=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/68746
* gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90: Xfail on hppa*-*-hpux*.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin  ---
Looks like but this one is hard to debug with gdb.

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2015-12-07
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Duplicate of pr68744?