[Bug testsuite/80611] [8 regression] test case gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 fails starting with r247495
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Revision 247803 Author: dominiq Date: Tue May 9 15:47:02 2017 UTC (11 minutes, 52 seconds ago) Changed paths: 2 Log Message: 2017-05-09 Dominique d'Humieres PR testsuite/80611 * gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90: Fix dg-final regexps.
[Bug testsuite/80611] [8 regression] test case gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 fails starting with r247495
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 9 May 2017, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611 > > --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > The following patch fixes the failures: > > --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 2016-09-19 > 18:03:55.0 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f902017-05-09 > 15:37:16.0 +0200 > @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ end > ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.., 0, 0, > 0B, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., 0, > 0, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > > -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.., \\(3 > - > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) MAX_EXPR <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - > parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) > parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock > \\(caf_token.1, \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ MAX_EXPR > <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* > \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., > \\(2 > - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) MAX_EXPR <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - > parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) > parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock > \\(caf_token.., \\(2 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ MAX_EXPR > <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* > \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.., \\(3 > - > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(MAX_EXPR parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, -1> \\+ 1\\) \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) > parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock > \\(caf_token.1, \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(MAX_EXPR > \\+ 1\\) \\* > \\(3 > - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., > \\(2 > - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(MAX_EXPR parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, -1> \\+ 1\\) \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) > parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock > \\(caf_token.., \\(2 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(MAX_EXPR > \\+ 1\\) \\* > \\(3 > - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > > ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(three.token, 0, 5 > - > \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, &acquired.\[0-9\]+, 0B, > 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock \\(three.token, 0, 5 - three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, > &acquired.\[0-9\]+, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(three.token, 0, > 8 > - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, &ii, 0B, > 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(three.token, 0, 8 - three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, > &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } > > I didn't try to find which revision replaced > > MAX_EXPR <(parm.9.dim[0].ubound - parm.9.dim[0].lbound) + 1, 0> > > with > > (MAX_EXPR + 1) The one enabling strict overflow by default for sure. Thanks for fixing and please commit!
[Bug testsuite/80611] [8 regression] test case gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 fails starting with r247495
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The following patch fixes the failures: --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 2016-09-19 18:03:55.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f902017-05-09 15:37:16.0 +0200 @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ end ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.., 0, 0, 0B, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., 0, 0, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.., \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) MAX_EXPR <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.1, \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ MAX_EXPR <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., \\(2 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) MAX_EXPR <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., \\(2 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ MAX_EXPR <\\(parm...dim\\\[0\\\].ubound - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ 1, 0> \\* \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.., \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(MAX_EXPR \\+ 1\\) \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock \\(caf_token.1, \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(MAX_EXPR \\+ 1\\) \\* \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, 0B, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., \\(2 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) \\(MAX_EXPR \\+ 1\\) \\* \\(3 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(caf_token.., \\(2 - parm...dim\\\[0\\\].lbound\\) \\+ \\(MAX_EXPR \\+ 1\\) \\* \\(3 - parm...dim\\\[1\\\].lbound\\), 0, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_lock \\(three.token, 0, 5 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, &acquired.\[0-9\]+, 0B, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_lock \\(three.token, 0, 5 - three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, &acquired.\[0-9\]+, 0B, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(three.token, 0, 8 - \\(integer\\(kind=4\\)\\) three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, &ii, 0B, 0\\);|_gfortran_caf_unlock \\(three.token, 0, 8 - three.dim\\\[0\\\].lbound, &ii, 0B, 0\\);" 1 "original" } } I didn't try to find which revision replaced MAX_EXPR <(parm.9.dim[0].ubound - parm.9.dim[0].lbound) + 1, 0> with (MAX_EXPR + 1)
[Bug testsuite/80611] [8 regression] test case gfortran.dg/coarray_lock_7.f90 fails starting with r247495
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80611 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2017-05-04 CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org, ||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |8.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Yeah, this testcase is really weird as it completely lacks a comment what we are supposed to look for. CCing coarray authors to update (and sanity check the new IL).