[Bug fortran/45186] [4.6 Regression] Gfortran 4.5.0 emits wrong linenumbers

2010-09-10 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #20 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-09-10 06:36 --- Tobias, many thanks for working on this... I mentioned this before in the PR, but it would be very good if some line number testcases were added to the regression tests. Both for performance measurements and debugging

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

2010-09-10 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #42 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-09-10 09:58 --- (In reply to comment #40) Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or broken customizations in the new Bugzilla product on the test installation, i.e. using this link: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug fortran/45595] New: segfault on omp collapse

2010-09-08 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45595

[Bug fortran/45597] New: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in gfc_trans_cycle, at fortran/trans-stmt.c:4320

2010-09-08 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45597

[Bug fortran/25096] Non-conforming shapes of DATA object and data

2010-09-08 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-09-08 18:22 --- (In reply to comment #3) just a question. why is this illegal ? it is R528 in the section on the data statement of the F2003 standard that suggests this has to be a scalar-structure-component. Not so obvious why

[Bug fortran/45576] New: [4.6 Regression] ICE on character stuff

2010-09-07 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45576

[Bug fortran/45576] [4.6 Regression] ICE on character stuff

2010-09-07 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
-- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at netcologne dot de Target Milestone

[Bug lto/45586] New: ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

2010-09-07 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586

[Bug lto/45586] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

2010-09-07 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-09-07 19:28 --- Simple testcase (gfortran -flto test.f90): MODULE M1 INTEGER, PARAMETER :: dp=8 TYPE realspace_grid_type REAL(KIND=dp), DIMENSION ( :, :, : ), ALLOCATABLE :: r END TYPE realspace_grid_type END MODULE

[Bug lto/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

2010-09-07 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-09-07 19:30 --- Actually works with 4.5 but fails with trunk -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 3x.

2010-08-29 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-29 06:38 --- adjust summary according to the last timings -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 3x.

2010-08-29 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #18 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-29 15:07 --- FYI, these are the 4.5 branch timings: Execution times (seconds) garbage collection: 0.47 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.47 ( 1%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc callgraph construction: 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1

[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 5x.

2010-08-28 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #11 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-29 05:09 --- After David's patch (thanks!), the testcase requires 240s, that's still a 5x slowdown. I paste the new timing profile below, and reopen the bug. There is no obvious candidate for the slowdown. gfortran -c -ftime

[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 5x.

2010-08-28 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #13 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-29 05:20 --- (In reply to comment #12) Extra diagnostic checks enabled; compiler may run slowly. Make sure you configure the trunk with --enable-checking=release to get the same timing results as what a release would

[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 5x.

2010-08-28 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #15 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-29 05:31 --- Similar times (a bit faster) with release checking: Execution times (seconds) garbage collection: 1.17 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 1.18 ( 1%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc callgraph construction: 0.04 ( 0%) usr

[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 8x.

2010-08-27 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-27 11:45 --- (In reply to comment #3) this connection with bounds-checking makes it sound familiar. I had a similar bug open (and fixed) as PR43627 with a comment from you http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43627#c11

[Bug middle-end/45422] New: [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 8x.

2010-08-26 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
. Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: compile-time-hog Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http

[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 8x.

2010-08-26 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-26 18:34 --- Created an attachment (id=21573) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21573action=view) testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422

[Bug fortran/45337] gfortran accepts pointer initialization of DT dummy arguments w/ INTENT(OUT)

2010-08-20 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #10 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-20 08:57 --- (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #8) Error: Dummy 'x' at (1) cannot have an initializer Do you have a suggestion? Error: Dummy argument 'x' at (1) cannot have the save attribute which is implied

[Bug fortran/45337] intent(out) and pointer = null()

2010-08-19 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-19 09:22 --- (In reply to comment #1) module ptrmod contains subroutine lengthX(x, i) implicit none real, pointer, intent(out) :: x(:)=null() you can't initialize a dummy argument, since initialization implies save. Just

[Bug middle-end/45172] [4.6 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed

2010-08-19 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-19 14:24 --- (In reply to comment #4) Not sure what exactly Fortran needs -fexceptions for currently, one reason could be pthread_cancel, but at least with OpenMP pthread_cancel isn't going to do very nice things anyway. We

[Bug fortran/45186] [4.6 Regression] Gfortran 4.5.0 emits wrong linenumbers

2010-08-17 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
-- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.5.2 |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45186

[Bug fortran/45186] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Gfortran 4.5.0 emits wrong linenumbers

2010-08-13 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-13 10:11 --- (In reply to comment #3) Might be related to pr41359 (whose patch was not committed). I think it is unrelated, since this used to work in 4.3, while pr41359 never worked AFAICT. Nevertheless, would be nice to commit

[Bug fortran/45186] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Gfortran 4.5.0 emits wrong linenumbers

2010-08-13 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-13 18:20 --- (In reply to comment #6) With or without the other patch, the gimple code has: isn't the gimple output showing linenumbers even in the case where the .original dump is missing them ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/45242] New: [4.6 Regression] ICE in trunc_int_for_mode, at explow.c:57

2010-08-09 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45242

[Bug fortran/45186] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Gfortran 4.5.0 emits wrong linenumbers

2010-08-05 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-05 11:13 --- confirmed with 4.5/4.6, works with 4.3/4.4. Compiling with -fdump-tree-all-lineno and looking into tx_f90_pointers.f90.003t.original shows that most of the lineno info has disappeared in 4.5. -- jv244 at cam dot ac

[Bug middle-end/45172] New: [4.6 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed

2010-08-03 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
Priority: P3 Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45172

[Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file

2010-07-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #61 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-24 08:24 --- (In reply to comment #60) it seems possible to retain only the first 60498 lines of all.f90 (till the end of module fft_tools), and add END to get a much smaller testcase... I've started a delta reduction, I

[Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file

2010-07-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #62 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-24 11:10 --- a testcase... cat bug.f90 SUBROUTINE fft_3d ( fft_type, fft_in_place, fsign, scale, n, zin, zout ) CALL fftsg3d ( fft_in_place, fsign, scale, n, zin, zout ) END SUBROUTINE fft_3d SUBROUTINE fft_1dm ( fft_type

[Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file

2010-07-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #63 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-24 11:14 --- even better testcase... no mismatching arguments: SUBROUTINE fft_3d ( ) CALL fftsg3d () END SUBROUTINE fft_3d SUBROUTINE fft_1dm ( ) END SUBROUTINE fft_1dm SUBROUTINE fftsg3d ( ) CALL mltfftsg ( ) END

[Bug fortran/32817] MODULE functions are not inlined

2010-07-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #10 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-24 17:58 --- with -fwhole-file being the default this testcase http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32817#c5 gets properly inlined at -O2. Yeah! I think this can be closed, but probably one would like to add a testcase

[Bug fortran/38913] Fortran does not set TYPE_CANONICAL properly

2010-07-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #20 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-24 18:12 --- is this now fixed, all test cases seem to be passing ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38913

[Bug fortran/40873] -fwhole-file -fwhole-program: Wrong decls cause too much to be optimized away

2010-07-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #17 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-24 18:15 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40873#c1 still fails with current trunk -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file

2010-07-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #59 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-23 22:15 --- I'm trying a recent trunk (162490), and I'm still observing that -fwhole-file causing linking errors. I have no easy testcase, the way to reproduce is: download http://www.pci.unizh.ch/vandevondele/tmp

[Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file

2010-07-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #60 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-23 22:55 --- (In reply to comment #59) I have no easy testcase it seems possible to retain only the first 60498 lines of all.f90 (till the end of module fft_tools), and add END to get a much smaller testcase... -- http

[Bug libgomp/44833] unexpected thread binding for openmp

2010-07-08 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-08 06:24 --- I have also tried to run the testcase with export OMP_WAIT_POLICY=active export GOMP_SPINCOUNT=infinity which I would assume to keep the threads alive, and so there would be no need to create these new threads

[Bug libgomp/44833] unexpected thread binding for openmp

2010-07-08 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #8 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-08 08:55 --- (In reply to comment #7) Yes, it would be possible to keep other threads around, the question is how many and how long, at which point start to destroy them. I can test what other implementations are doing, but I

[Bug libgomp/44833] New: unexpected thread binding for openmp

2010-07-06 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
. -- Summary: unexpected thread binding for openmp Product: gcc Version: 4.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgomp AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac

[Bug libgomp/44833] unexpected thread binding for openmp

2010-07-06 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-06 08:03 --- Created an attachment (id=21099) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21099action=view) testcase part 1 C code to report thread binding -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44833

[Bug libgomp/44833] unexpected thread binding for openmp

2010-07-06 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-06 08:05 --- Created an attachment (id=21100) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21100action=view) fortran testcase build run testcase as : gfortran -fopenmp test.f90 get_affinity.c export OMP_NUM_THREADS=8 export

[Bug libgomp/44833] unexpected thread binding for openmp

2010-07-06 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-06 10:01 --- (In reply to comment #3) That's how GOMP_CPU_AFFINITY works - it is a round-robin assignment of CPUs upon thread creation, and the first two threads are never recreated in this case. Currently there is no tracking

[Bug libgomp/44833] unexpected thread binding for openmp

2010-07-06 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-07-06 11:32 --- I also checked the pgi and cray compilers, they all lead to iforts thread binding. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44833

[Bug bootstrap/44721] [4.6 regression] Failed to bootstrap

2010-06-30 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-30 07:14 --- similar error compiling CP2K with rev 161570, (rev 161517 was still OK). /data/vondele/gcc_bench/cp2k/makefiles/../src/qs_rho0_methods.F:850:0: error: unrecognizable insn: (insn 6975 398 6976 13 /data/vondele/gcc_bench

[Bug middle-end/43866] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-06-25 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #20 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-25 09:28 --- (In reply to comment #18) That part comes from the questionable testcase, which does a_sp = matrix%local_data_sp before the loop unconditionally, eventhough matrix%local_data_sp is uninitialized unless use_sp

[Bug fortran/44622] [4.6 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec

2010-06-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-24 22:04 --- can reproduce this anymore, closing as fixed -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/44622] New: [4.6 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec

2010-06-22 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44622

[Bug middle-end/44496] [4.6 Regression] ICE: segfault: bitmap_elt_clear_from

2010-06-22 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-22 05:46 --- this has disappeared for current trunk -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/41137] inefficient zeroing of an array

2010-06-21 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-21 15:49 --- (In reply to comment #7) I cannot reproduce the factor of 10 results, however. Here this still is the case (so might depend on the precise architecture): /data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/build/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown

[Bug libgomp/44536] New: OMP: missing error with default(none)

2010-06-14 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
) Product: gcc Version: 4.4.5 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgomp AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http

[Bug middle-end/44496] ICE: segfault: bitmap_elt_clear_from

2010-06-10 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-10 19:12 --- Created an attachment (id=20886) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20886action=view) testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44496

[Bug middle-end/44496] New: ICE: segfault: bitmap_elt_clear_from

2010-06-10 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44496

[Bug middle-end/44496] [4.6 Regression] ICE: segfault: bitmap_elt_clear_from

2010-06-10 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
-- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.5.1 Summary|ICE: segfault: |[4.6 Regression

[Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file

2010-05-26 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #56 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-05-26 13:13 --- (In reply to comment #55) Subject: Bug 40011 Author: pault Date: Wed May 26 05:11:04 2010 New Revision: 159852 I'm still having linking problems with -fwhole-file on the single source file version of CP2K

[Bug middle-end/38474] [Meta] slow compilation at -O0 (callgraph optimization, inline heuristics, expand )

2010-05-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #47 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-05-23 06:31 --- all dependencies are fixed, and so is this bug. -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/43866] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-05-22 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #8 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-05-22 14:09 --- (In reply to comment #7) 4.5.1, using '-O2 -funswitch-loops' obviously '-O2 -funswitch-loops -fbounds-check' -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43866

[Bug fortran/44155] gfortran segmentation fault using iso_c_binding

2010-05-16 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-05-16 06:57 --- reduced testcase: module mod_tetgen use iso_c_binding type tetgenio double precision, pointer :: pointlist(:,:) integer :: numberoffacets = 0 end type tetgenio contains subroutine tetgenf( in, out

[Bug tree-optimization/29212] ICE with -fipa-pta

2010-05-03 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #13 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-05-03 07:46 --- these might be fixed in current trunk as a result of the fixes to PR43879 -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/40011] Problems with -fwhole-file

2010-05-03 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #53 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-05-03 10:57 --- testcase in comment #40 now works. Comment #42 still fails. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40011

[Bug tree-optimization/43879] -fipa-pta causes various miscompilations

2010-04-30 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #17 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-30 15:26 --- in this case the Fortran bits depend on PR40011 -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/42958] Weird temporary array allocation

2010-04-28 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #20 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-28 15:20 --- (In reply to comment #18) If that's all acceptable I will work on this soon. FYI, this would fix PR38318 and PR21046 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958

[Bug fortran/38111] unneeded temporary

2010-04-27 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-27 18:07 --- still fails with current trunk. -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added Known

[Bug tree-optimization/25621] Missed optimization when unrolling the loop (splitting up the sum) (only with -ffast-math)

2010-04-27 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #11 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-27 18:25 --- the original loop gets now (4.6.0) vectorized, and gets the same performance as the 'hand optimized loop' (which does not get vectorized): ./a.out default loop 0.880055003 hand optimized loop

[Bug middle-end/43866] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-04-26 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-26 11:06 --- I have been trying to reduce more, but this is the smallest so far, seems like it needs the derived types, the 2D arrays, the pointers. I've reduced this with 4.5.1, using '-O2 -funswitch-loops' MODULE M1 IMPLICIT

[Bug fortran/43793] [4.5/4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #12 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-24 12:25 --- This was also ported back to 4.5.1, causing a regression there. This is against the policy of 'open for regression and documentation fixes'. It was also never approved for the branch only trunk. 2010-04-16 Steven G

[Bug fortran/43793] [4.5/4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #14 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-24 17:58 --- (In reply to comment #13) For even more completeness, the code in comment #12 is still invalid. do you mind to clarify ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43793

[Bug fortran/43793] [4.5/4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-24 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-24 18:12 --- (In reply to comment #15) pos is undefined. Ah, we're at that level. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43793

[Bug middle-end/43866] New: wrong code with -O3 -fbounds-check

2010-04-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43866

[Bug middle-end/43866] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-04-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-23 09:21 --- The error also appears with: gfortran -fbounds-check -O1 -funswitch-loops test.f90 -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/43866] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-04-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-23 09:25 --- reduced testcase: IMPLICIT NONE INTEGER, PARAMETER :: sp=4, dp=8 TYPE cp_fm_type REAL(KIND=sp), DIMENSION(:,:), POINTER :: local_data_sp REAL(KIND=dp), DIMENSION(:,:), POINTER :: local_data INTEGER

[Bug middle-end/43866] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-04-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-23 10:30 --- It looks like in the .optimized dump these: a_sp$offset = amat-local_data_sp.offset; a_sp$dim$1$stride = amat-local_data_sp.dim[1].stride; a_sp$dim$1$ubound = amat-local_data_sp.dim[1].ubound; a_sp$dim$1$lbound

[Bug middle-end/43866] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-04-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-23 13:32 --- (In reply to comment #4) Hm, I can't reproduce this. I see, the reduced testcase (comment #2) indeed doesn't fail with trunk anymore, but the original does (but only at -O3 -fbounds-check). -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/43866] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong code with -fbounds-check -funswitch-loops

2010-04-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-23 17:29 --- both testcases work with 4.1.2. I've also checked various versions of valgrind, which all report consistent results. Also 4.5 only fails on the original testcase. for reference, -v gives: gcc-4.5/bin/gfortran-4.5 -O3

[Bug fortran/40994] ICE with BIND(C)

2010-04-23 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-23 20:17 --- as per comment #4, and reconfirmed for trunk -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/43836] New: ice with -fexceptions and -fopenmp

2010-04-21 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
and -fopenmp Product: gcc Version: 4.4.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot

[Bug middle-end/43836] [4.4 Regression] ice with -fexceptions and -fopenmp

2010-04-21 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-21 15:30 --- 4.3.1 ([gcc-4_3-branch revision 135036]) does not fail, so marking as regression. 4.5.0 works as well with 4.4.4 I have this backtrace: (gdb) bt #0 bitmap_element_allocate (head=0x10284c0) at /data03/vondele

[Bug fortran/43836] [4.4 Regression] ice with -fexceptions and -fopenmp

2010-04-21 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-21 17:53 --- (In reply to comment #2) See patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-04/msg00222.html and follow up at PR 43837 beats the speed of light... thanks. A very practical question. Is Fortran code compiled

[Bug fortran/43793] [4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-20 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-20 17:53 --- yawn valid testcase here ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cp2k/cp2k.tar.gz -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/43793] New: [4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-19 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43793

[Bug middle-end/43793] [4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-19 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-19 07:52 --- small enough for pasting: cat bug.f90 MODULE fft_tools INTEGER, PARAMETER :: sp=4, dp=8 INTEGER, PARAMETER :: lp = dp CONTAINS SUBROUTINE sparse_alltoall ( rs, scount, sreq, rq, rcount, rreq, group ) COMPLEX

[Bug middle-end/43793] [4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-19 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-19 09:23 --- Dominique, you should ask for 'bugzilla confirmation rights' which will allow to touch the 'Confirm' fields etc... -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/43793] [4.6 Regression] tree check: expected tree that contains �decl minimal� structure, have �indirect_ref� in gfc_trans_array_bound_check

2010-04-19 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-19 11:56 --- (In reply to comment #6) If you have svn write access you have full bugzilla rights if you use a bugzilla account with your @gcc.gnu.org address. Indeed I don't have svn write access and I am not planning to ask

[Bug fortran/41359] Wrong line numbers for debugging/profiling

2010-04-11 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-11 18:02 --- looks like we have a patch... -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/41359] Wrong line numbers for debugging/profiling

2010-04-10 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-10 19:04 --- still present in 4.6. The issue seems to be missing location info for the nested if [if (a0) ], the missing info in the original dump appears as a incorrect line:7 in the gimple. It is specific to the 'else if' form

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] New: [4.5 Regression] slow compilation

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43627

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 08:16 --- Created an attachment (id=20287) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20287action=view) testcase reproduce with gfortran -fbounds-check -g -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize -march=native

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
-- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43627

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation (tree canonical iv )

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 08:27 --- And a timing report as well (notice the machine is not fully idle). The major consumer is tree canonical. Execution times (seconds) garbage collection: 7.71 ( 2%) usr 0.07 ( 4%) sys 14.12 ( 2%) wall 0

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation (tree canonical iv )

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 09:26 --- (In reply to comment #3) This tells me you are comparing apples and cows: Extra diagnostic checks enabled; compiler may run slowly. Could you try again with a compiler configured with --enable=checking=release

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation (tree canonical iv )

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 09:47 --- (In reply to comment #3) cows with cows now (i.e. --enable-checking=release), on an idle machine. Execution times (seconds) garbage collection: 0.29 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.31 ( 0%) wall 0 kB ( 0

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation (tree canonical iv takes 75%)

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 12:28 --- (In reply to comment #6) What's your native arch? I can't reproduce this on a core i?86. -v output: /data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/build/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/f951 hog.f90 -march=k8-sse3 -mcx16

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation (tree canonical iv takes 75%)

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 14:07 --- Created an attachment (id=20290) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20290action=view) smaller testcase (needs 3s, 80% in tree canonical iv) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43627

[Bug tree-optimization/43627] [4.5 Regression] slow compilation (tree canonical iv takes 75%)

2010-04-02 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #12 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 14:17 --- (In reply to comment #9) Created an attachment (id=20290) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20290action=view) [edit] smaller testcase (needs 3s, 80% in tree canonical iv) from valgrind, I see some

[Bug bootstrap/43615] New: bootstrap fails: /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or directory

2010-04-01 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43615

[Bug bootstrap/43615] bootstrap fails: /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or directory

2010-04-01 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-01 07:06 --- svn versions: last known good: 157842 first known bad: 157896 CCing a RM -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/43615] [4.5 Regression] bootstrap fails: /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or directory

2010-04-01 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
-- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|bootstrap fails:|[4.5 Regression] bootstrap |/usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7

[Bug bootstrap/43615] [4.5 Regression] bootstrap fails: /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or directory

2010-04-01 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-01 12:41 --- Created an attachment (id=20273) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20273action=view) log of the build -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43615

[Bug bootstrap/43615] [4.5 Regression] bootstrap fails: /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or directory

2010-04-01 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-01 12:42 --- (In reply to comment #4) The bug reporter explicitly specified --disable-multilib, yet gcc-4.5 apparently now tries to build libgcc with -m32. right... you've been faster. I've added the logs of the build

[Bug fortran/42607] add information about how to compile a module

2010-04-01 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 05:29 --- (In reply to comment #2) I think .mod files are not obvious; the standard does not say anything about them, though (almost?) all compilers use them. On the other hand, few people seem to have problems with .mod files

[Bug fortran/43591] internal compiler error: in gfc_traverse_expr, at fortran/expr.c:3604

2010-03-30 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-03-30 17:58 --- confirmed. -- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/43592] New: Unexpected INTERFACE statement in INTERFACE block at (1)

2010-03-30 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43592

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >