Hi,
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 20:31, Paul Richard Thomas < [hidden email]> wrote: > I must apologise not posting this before committing. I left for a > vacation this morning and I thought that this problem and the one > posted by Gilles were best fixed before departing. The patch only > touches the new ISO_Fortran binding feature and so I thought that I > would be safe to do this. > > It was fully regtested and only applies to trunk. > > Paul > > Author: pault > Date: Sat Oct 5 08:17:55 2019 > New Revision: 276624 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276624&root=gcc&view=rev > Log: > 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> > > PR fortran/91926 > * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc): Correct the > assignment of the attribute field to account correctly for an > assumed shape dummy. Assign separately to the gfc and cfi > descriptors since the atribute can be different. Add btanch to > correctly handle missing optional dummies. > > 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> > > PR fortran/91926 > * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 : New test. > * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c : Additional source. > * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 : New test. > > 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> > > PR fortran/91926 > * runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c (cfi_desc_to_gfc_desc): Do not > modify the bounds and offset for CFI_other. > > Added: > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 > Modified: > trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog > trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c > trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog > trunk/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c > Since this was committed (r276624), I have noticed regressions on arm-linux-gnueabihf: FAIL: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_11.f90 -O3 -g execution test I've seen other reports on gcc-testresults too. Christophe |
See also: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92027
for a tracking bug – I just added also some analysis. Tobias PS: A better patch submission, with the actual patch attached, would have been nice. Please re-post the committed patch – and the new patch, which fixes the fall out. – Thanks! On 10/9/19 12:26 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > Thanks for flagging this up - I am back at base on Saturday and will > take it up then. > > Regards > > Paul > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:13, Christophe Lyon <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 20:31, Paul Richard Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> I must apologise not posting this before committing. I left for a >>> vacation this morning and I thought that this problem and the one >>> posted by Gilles were best fixed before departing. The patch only >>> touches the new ISO_Fortran binding feature and so I thought that I >>> would be safe to do this. >>> >>> It was fully regtested and only applies to trunk. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> Author: pault >>> Date: Sat Oct 5 08:17:55 2019 >>> New Revision: 276624 >>> >>> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276624&root=gcc&view=rev >>> Log: >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> >>> >>> PR fortran/91926 >>> * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc): Correct the >>> assignment of the attribute field to account correctly for an >>> assumed shape dummy. Assign separately to the gfc and cfi >>> descriptors since the atribute can be different. Add btanch to >>> correctly handle missing optional dummies. >>> >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> >>> >>> PR fortran/91926 >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 : New test. >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c : Additional source. >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 : New test. >>> >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> >>> >>> PR fortran/91926 >>> * runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c (cfi_desc_to_gfc_desc): Do not >>> modify the bounds and offset for CFI_other. >>> >>> Added: >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 >>> Modified: >>> trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog >>> trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >>> trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog >>> trunk/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c >> >> >> Since this was committed (r276624), I have noticed regressions on arm-linux-gnueabihf: >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_11.f90 -O3 -g execution test >> I've seen other reports on gcc-testresults too. >> >> Christophe >> > |
Tobias,
You are quite right to take me to task. As I wrote in the original message to the list, I was trying to respond rapidly before stepping out of the door on vacation. The original patch is attached. The fix to this problem is to revert that part in libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c. As you implicitly surmised, I was assuming that 'd' would be initialised in the caller. I cannot see why this should be the case but sometimes the optimizer seems to cut away a bit too much code :-( I have done the reversion in r277204 after regtesting, of course. I am retesting an update to 9-branch, as requested. I will submit to the list tomorrow. Cheers Paul 2019-10-19 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> PR fortran/91926 * runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c (cfi_desc_to_gfc_desc): Revert the change made on 2019-10-05. On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 14:39, Tobias Burnus <[hidden email]> wrote: > > See also: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92027 > for a tracking bug – I just added also some analysis. > > Tobias > > PS: A better patch submission, with the actual patch attached, would > have been nice. Please re-post the committed patch – and the new patch, > which fixes the fall out. – Thanks! > > On 10/9/19 12:26 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > Hi Christophe, > > > > Thanks for flagging this up - I am back at base on Saturday and will > > take it up then. > > > > Regards > > > > Paul > > > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:13, Christophe Lyon <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 20:31, Paul Richard Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> I must apologise not posting this before committing. I left for a > >>> vacation this morning and I thought that this problem and the one > >>> posted by Gilles were best fixed before departing. The patch only > >>> touches the new ISO_Fortran binding feature and so I thought that I > >>> would be safe to do this. > >>> > >>> It was fully regtested and only applies to trunk. > >>> > >>> Paul > >>> > >>> Author: pault > >>> Date: Sat Oct 5 08:17:55 2019 > >>> New Revision: 276624 > >>> > >>> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276624&root=gcc&view=rev > >>> Log: > >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> > >>> > >>> PR fortran/91926 > >>> * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc): Correct the > >>> assignment of the attribute field to account correctly for an > >>> assumed shape dummy. Assign separately to the gfc and cfi > >>> descriptors since the atribute can be different. Add btanch to > >>> correctly handle missing optional dummies. > >>> > >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> > >>> > >>> PR fortran/91926 > >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 : New test. > >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c : Additional source. > >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 : New test. > >>> > >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas <[hidden email]> > >>> > >>> PR fortran/91926 > >>> * runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c (cfi_desc_to_gfc_desc): Do not > >>> modify the bounds and offset for CFI_other. > >>> > >>> Added: > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 > >>> Modified: > >>> trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog > >>> trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > >>> trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog > >>> trunk/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c > >> > >> > >> Since this was committed (r276624), I have noticed regressions on arm-linux-gnueabihf: > >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_11.f90 -O3 -g execution test > >> I've seen other reports on gcc-testresults too. > >> > >> Christophe > >> > > -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein |
In reply to this post by Christophe Lyon-2
On 10/21/19 7:28 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Please find attached a patch to keep 9-branch up to speed with trunk > as far as the ISO_Fortran_binding feature is concerned. > > It bootstraps and regtests on 9-branch and incorporates the correction > for PR92027, which caused problems for trunk on certain platforms. > > OK to commit? OK. Thanks for the patch. Tobias > 2019-10-21 Paul Thomas<[hidden email]> > > Backport from trunk > PR fortran/91926 > * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc): Correct the > assignment of the attribute field to account correctly for an > assumed shape dummy. Assign separately to the gfc and cfi > descriptors since the atribute can be different. Add branch to > correctly handle missing optional dummies. > > 2019-10-21 Paul Thomas<[hidden email]> > > Backport from trunk > PR fortran/91926 > * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 : New test. > * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c : Additional source. > * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 : New test. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |