[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- So since the offending patch was reverted the regression is gone(?)
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 --- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon --- I've attached the execution traces from PR25829 here for clarity. Looking at them, I've noticed a different execution path in build.4947.constprop.0, starting at line 5477 in the "OK" file, and line 5483 in the "KO" file.
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 --- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon --- Created attachment 45229 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45229=edit execution trace of KO static binary
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 --- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon --- Created attachment 45228 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45228=edit execution trace of OK static binary
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 --- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon --- Looks like there was a misunderstanding, I was probably not clear. r263082 actually removed the regression I reported, because that commit reverts the offending one. So current trunk is OK. I'm looking again at the traces, and the different function names noticed by Thomas seem harmless (it seems to me that the different symbols refer to the same functions, eg _uname is weak alias for uname, etc...)
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2018-12-12 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Any progress? It looks like a target issue.
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Has there been any analysis why it fails? Is it really a library issue, or miscompiled library, something else? The testcase doesn't seem to use asynchronous keyword anywhere, so it is unclear why that commit would make any difference.
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||armeb --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Odd bisection result so not exact revision?
[Bug libfortran/87048] [9 Regression] array_constructor_8.f90 failure on armeb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||25829 Target Milestone|--- |9.0 Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829 [Bug 25829] [F03] Asynchronous IO support
