http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
Bug 27766 depends on bug 39286, which changed state.
Bug 39286 Summary: Missing out-of-bounds diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39286
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
Bug 27766 depends on bug 29800, which changed state.
Bug 29800 Summary: -fbounds-check: For derived types, write not also compound
name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 20:28
---
PR27989 and PR30939 essentially describe the same problem, once with an
implicit, once with an explicit interface. The explicit case is sort-of solved,
the implicit case will be if we ever get whole-file checking.
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:01
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Count PR32317 in as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-23 08:54 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(2) The failure of gfortran.dg/bound_2.f90 comes from Incorrect size in
SOURCE argument to RESHAPE intrinsic: is 9, should be 4. This is wrong, the
standard says:
If PAD is absent
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-23 20:52 ---
For gfortran.dg/g77/dnrm2.f the failure comes from the old style array
declaration:
double precision dx(1), cutlo, cuthi, hitest, sum, xmax,zero,one
If 'dx(1)' is replaced by 'dx(*)', -fbounds-check does not
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-23 21:02 ---
In addition to comment #8, the bound check would be possible using:
double precision dx(n), cutlo, cuthi, hitest, sum, xmax,zero,one
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-23 22:39 ---
With the following changes:
Only in ../_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/: array_memset_2.f90
Only in gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/: array_setmem_2.f90
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr37243.f
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-22 23:52 ---
Current failures with bounds checking:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90 -O0 scan-tree-dump-times original
memset 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90 -O1 scan-tree-dump-times original
memset 2
FAIL:
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-23 00:32 ---
(1) It seems that the failure of gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90 comes from a
too broad regexp for scan-tree-dump-times: grep memset
array_memset_2.f90.003t.original gives
_gfortran_runtime_error_at (At
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 20:02 ---
Failures at the moment:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90 -O0 scan-tree-dump-times original
memset 2
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90 -O1 scan-tree-dump-times original
memset 2
FAIL:
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 20:47 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90 -O0 scan-tree-dump-times original
memset 2
This is due to a false positive because memset in the error message
(due to the filename) matches more
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-27 09:03
---
(In reply to comment #1)
make check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS=-target_board=unix/-fbounds-check
With mainline today and the patch for PR 19777, the list is failure is now:
gfortran.dg/cray_pointers_2.f90
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-24 21:51
---
With gfortran mainline 20060517 (and the patch for PR 27524), here is a list of
failures recorder when the testsuite is run with -fbounds-check (command line
is make check-gfortran
14 matches
Mail list logo
