[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-04-13 13:18 
---
Fixed


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-11 00:43 ---
Subject: Bug 39701

Author: hjl
Date: Sat Apr 11 00:43:33 2009
New Revision: 145948

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145948
Log:
2009-04-10  Paolo Bonzini  

PR tree-optimization/39701
* doc/invoke.texi (Optimization Options): Document change in
meaning and initialization of -fdelete-null-pointer-checks.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-10 18:58 ---
Subject: Bug 39701

Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 10 18:58:12 2009
New Revision: 145937

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145937
Log:
2009-04-10  H.J. Lu  

PR middle-end/39701
* common.opt (-fdelete-null-pointer-checks): Initialize to 1.

* opts.c (decode_options): Don't set flag_delete_null_pointer_checks
here.

* doc/invoke.texi: Update -fdelete-null-pointer-checks.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/common.opt
trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
trunk/gcc/opts.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-10 17:14 ---
Subject: Bug 39701

Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 10 17:14:35 2009
New Revision: 145930

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145930
Log:
2009-04-10  Paolo Bonzini  

PR middle-end/39701
* trans.c (gfc_allocate_with_status): Fix type mismatches
on "pstat == 0".

Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/trans.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-10 16:52 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> This is an alternative way to fix the PR36901 failures by enabling
> -fdelete-null-pointer-checks at -O0 and -O1.
> 
> The patch is preapproved, but I won't have time to test it and apply it until
> next week.

Having said  I'll regtest this on cris-elf nonetheless.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #10 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-10 16:50 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > We know it's not NULL.
> I don't think the compiler can say so if not -fdelete-null-pointer-checks, and
> the flag is off at -O0 and -O1 (which is a separate bug and a separate patch).

Different thing.  You're taking the address of a (non-weak) *object* (hence,
can't be NULL), not removing a NULL test because of an earlier *pointer*
indirection.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2009-04-10 16:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=17614)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17614&action=view)
second part of the fix

This is an alternative way to fix the PR36901 failures by enabling
-fdelete-null-pointer-checks at -O0 and -O1.

The patch is preapproved, but I won't have time to test it and apply it until
next week.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2009-04-10 16:07 ---
The fortran problem is now latent.  The PR39601 failures remain and will be
cured differently.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2009-04-10 16:06 ---
Subject: Bug 39701

Author: bonzini
Date: Fri Apr 10 16:06:43 2009
New Revision: 145927

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145927
Log:
2009-04-10  Paolo Bonzini  

PR middle-end/39701
* fold-const.c (tree_single_nonzero_warnv_p): Pass non-static
variables as non-NULL even with -fdelete-null-pointer-checks.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2009-04-10 16:05 ---
> We know it's not NULL.

I don't think the compiler can say so if not -fdelete-null-pointer-checks, and
the flag is off at -O0 and -O1 (which is a separate bug and a separate patch).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-10 15:28 ---
For the record, seeing the same regressions for cris-elf, 145839:145857.

Wrt. comment #3, if addresses were unsigned before (or this'd have failed),
they should still be so, and this still be constant true, right?  Regardless of
target. (We know it's not NULL.)


-- 

hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hp at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-04-10 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The pr36901-* are correct to fail IMO -- they now give an "initializer is not
> constant" error which they weren't giving before -- because you cannot know in
> principle that &sc > 0 at compile-time, you have to wait for linking.
> 

I think it is target specific.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2009-04-10 06:55 ---
The pr36901-* are correct to fail IMO -- they now give an "initializer is not
constant" error which they weren't giving before -- because you cannot know in
principle that &sc > 0 at compile-time, you have to wait for linking.


-- 

bonzini at gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed|2009-04-10 06:42:47 |2009-04-10 06:55:05
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2009-04-10 06:42 ---
The Fortran problem is a real bug in the front-end that was masked by folding.

The problem is that we're folding less than without my patch.  I'll prepare a
patch to both fix the Fortran problem and reestablish the folding.


-- 

bonzini at gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |bonzini at gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-04-10 06:42:47
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701

[Bug middle-end/39701] [4.5 Regression] Revision 145846 caused many test failures

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2009-04-09 22:50 ---
Revision 145846:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-04/msg00470.html

is the cause. I got

/export/gnu/import/rrs/145846/src/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_basics_2.f90:7:
internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed^M
Please submit a full bug report,^M
with preprocessed source if appropriate.^M
See  for instructions.^M

on both Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64. You may need to enable checking to
see it.


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
Summary|[4.5 Regression] Many test  |[4.5 Regression] Revision
   |failures|145846 caused many test
   ||failures


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39701