[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-08-15 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-08-14 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #20 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Mikael Morin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:564b637f4a32883cbf3c3019d3cfcf0b0aec9b82 commit r14-3207-g564b637f4a32883cbf3c3019d3cfcf0b0aec9b82 Author: Mikael Morin Date:

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-08-10 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-31 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55662 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55662=edit Updated tentative patch This fixes comment #4 as well, but the failure on value_9 remains on 32 bit powerpc. It is

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-30 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55660 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55660=edit Update function type patch This patch changes the dummy argument declaration type. It changes the dump as follows.

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-18 Thread dje at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-15 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin --- rs6000_pass_by_reference returns true with -m32, and false with -m64. So the second argument is passed by reference with -m32, and by value with -m64. So the code in val looks right, it is the code in p

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-06 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin --- The tree optimized dumps are almost the same for 32 and 64 bits. The expand dumps show more significant differences. The 64 bits dump shows the register r4 is saved to memory with: (insn 3 2 4 2 (set

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-06 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55488 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55488=edit -m64 rtl final dump at -O0

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-06 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55487 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55487=edit -m64 rtl expand dump at -O0

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-06 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55486 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55486=edit -m64tree optimized (at -O0) dump

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-05 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin --- The three previous dumps are generated with the example in comment #4. The problem seems to turn around the val function needing to take the address of the c argument, which is passed by value. On powerpc,

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-05 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55480 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55480=edit -m32 final rtl dump at -O0

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-05 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55479 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55479=edit -m32 rtl exand dump at -O0

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-05 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 55478 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55478=edit -m32 tree optimized (at -O0) dump

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-05 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- I finally got my access on gcc110 working. (gdb) r Starting program: /home/mmorin/gcc-pr110360/pr110360/pr110419_comment4 Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x1684 in val (x=...,

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-07-02 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The testers show a similar behavior on sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11: OK at -m64, FAIL at -m32. Not sure which endianness that is.

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-06-29 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- It appears that the issue could be studied with the following code: program p implicit none integer :: a = 65 call val ("A", char(a)) contains subroutine val (x, c)

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-06-29 Thread seurer at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I just tried r14-2190-ge972bdce61cc52 on another BE machine and got: spawn [open ...] by value(kind=1): B by value(kind=1): A Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-06-29 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #1) > Harald committed an additional fix to the PR: > Unfortunately, the failure on big endian power remains. Is the execution output the same as before?

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-06-29 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

2023-06-27 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||testsuite-fail