On 12 September 2017 at 16:21, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Hi Jason >> >> On 10 September 2017 at 11:09, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> A few months back I queued this patch to bring back for GCC 8. >>> Unfortunately I don't remember the context that it came up in, but it >>> affects for instance cases of self-assignment, which can't have a >>> constant value if there is no previous initialization. >>> >>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. >> >> I've noticed that this patch causes a regression in fortran on >> armeb-linux-gnumeabihf >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocate_zerosize_3.f -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer >> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution >> test >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocate_zerosize_3.f -O3 -g execution test >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer >> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution >> test >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_1.f90 -O3 -g execution test >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer >> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution >> test >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_2.f90 -O3 -g execution test >> >> target armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf >> --with-mode arm >> --with-cpu cortex-a9 >> --with-fpu neon-fp16 >> >> using --with-fpu vfpv3-d16-fp16 does not introduce the regression. >> >> target arm-none-linux-gnueabihf with the same parameters is OK ('arm' >> as opposed to 'armeb') >> >> My gfortran.log only shows: >> spawn [open ...] >> Program aborted. Backtrace: >> qemu: uncaught target signal 6 (Aborted) - core dumped > > This makes little sense. Are you compiling the cross compiler with > the new native compiler? Since this patch only touches the C++ > front-end and only C++11 even that makes less sense. Are you sure > this was not a bug in qemu which is just happening showing up now? > Even then this makes little sense as the code generation between the > two revisions should not touch anything related to fortran. >
Hmmmm you are probably right. I'm compiling the cross compiler with the system's native compiler. Looks like I need to check why my bisect script returns the wrong revision. Thanks, Christophe > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski > >> >> Christophe