[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #26 from John David Anglin 2010-10-21 23:07:28 UTC --- Fixed.
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #25 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-10-20 14:06:11 UTC --- Author: vmakarov Date: Wed Oct 20 14:06:08 2010 New Revision: 165724 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165724 Log: 2010-10-20 Vladimir Makarov PR fortran/42169 * ira-emit.c (store_can_be_removed_p): Return false instead of gcc_unreachable. Modified: branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ira-emit.c
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-10-20 14:05:25 UTC --- Author: vmakarov Date: Wed Oct 20 14:05:21 2010 New Revision: 165723 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165723 Log: 2010-10-20 Vladimir Makarov PR fortran/42169 * ira-emit.c (store_can_be_removed_p): Return false instead of gcc_unreachable. Modified: branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/ira-emit.c
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #23 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-10-20 13:51:37 UTC --- Author: vmakarov Date: Wed Oct 20 13:51:31 2010 New Revision: 165722 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165722 Log: 2010-10-20 Vladimir Makarov PR fortran/42169 * ira-emit.c (store_can_be_removed_p): Return false instead of gcc_unreachable. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/ira-emit.c
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com --- Comment #22 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-10-20 03:03:53 UTC --- Function store_can_be_removed_p was written in assumption that the store is on a loop exit. Apparently it is not true. In this case, it was actually a loop entry from 4 to 5 in loop tree: 0->1->2->3->4->5 | -->6->7 There should be some rare combinations of conditions (one is that pseudo is not changed in whole program) to achieve gcc_unreachable for the loop entry. Therefore it is hard to reproduce. There is a very simple solution which is to return false (preventing this optimization) instead of gcc_unreachable (that is a loop entry case). I'll send a patch soon.
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #21 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-19 10:55:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) > Not really, there are about 300 lines of new code (mostly in a new routine). > It might be that only the change in can_reassociate_p is needed to fix this > bug. > That would be a pretty easy backport and I verified that it fixes the > testcase, > I haven't done a complete run with the change though. Just backporting that change will cause quite some regressions. Note that I think it can't be a real fix for the ICE - it'll only paper over it.
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 17:54:42 UTC --- Not really, there are about 300 lines of new code (mostly in a new routine). It might be that only the change in can_reassociate_p is needed to fix this bug. That would be a pretty easy backport and I verified that it fixes the testcase, I haven't done a complete run with the change though.
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #19 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-18 17:27:04 UTC --- > It looks like this was fixed (for hppa at least) in r163190. > > 2010-08-12 Richard Guenther > > PR tree-optimization/45232 > * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (can_reassociate_p): Disable re-association > for types with undefined overflow. > (reassociate_bb): Allow re-associating of bit and min/max > operations for types with undefined overflow. > * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (associate_plusminus): New function. > (tree_ssa_forward_propagate_single_use_vars): Call it. Is it easy to backport? Dave
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 16:55:32 UTC --- It looks like this was fixed (for hppa at least) in r163190. 2010-08-12 Richard Guenther PR tree-optimization/45232 * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (can_reassociate_p): Disable re-association for types with undefined overflow. (reassociate_bb): Allow re-associating of bit and min/max operations for types with undefined overflow. * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (associate_plusminus): New function. (tree_ssa_forward_propagate_single_use_vars): Call it.
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey 2010-10-18 15:51:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > Based on my posted test results for hppa2.0-hp-hpux11.11, this PR was > fixed on the trunk between r163182 and r163254. > > Need to find the change. My nightly testing shows it fixed by r163218, I'll see if I can find the exact version number.
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 --- Comment #16 from John David Anglin 2010-10-17 21:01:27 UTC --- Based on my posted test results for hppa2.0-hp-hpux11.11, this PR was fixed on the trunk between r163182 and r163254. Need to find the change.
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.5 |4.4.6
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 09:20 --- Any idea what could be done from the gfortran side? Without being able to reproduce it, it is a bit difficult to debug :-( -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #14 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 19:31 --- I still see it as of 161474 (both head and 4.5). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #13 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-06-11 20:19 --- On hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, I don't see the testsuite failure after 158397. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #12 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 20:07 --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Now (with r160560) appearing for cris-elf too! > > Forgot to mention that it last worked for cris-elf with r160547. Last known appearance r160602, gone again at r160612. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 21:02 --- (In reply to comment #10) > Now (with r160560) appearing for cris-elf too! Forgot to mention that it last worked for cris-elf with r160547. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #10 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 21:00 --- Now (with r160560) appearing for cris-elf too! -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hp at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.4 |4.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-16 20:15 --- When compiled with -O2 -Wuninitialized, the reduced test of comment #3 gives ... pr42169.f90: In function 'moment': pr42169.f90:15:0: warning: 'lx' may be used uninitialized in this function pr42169.f90:16:0: warning: 'lx1' may be used uninitialized in this function (without ICE on x86_64-apple-darwin10). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-04-16 19:54 --- I think the problem is related to the fact that IRA is trying to figure out if the store of lx1 can be eliminated and lx1 may be uninitialized. The only place lx1 is set is in an if statement in a loop. If we don't execute the if statement then lx1 is never set and this may be what IRA is complaining about. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #7 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-04-15 23:47 --- Since the failure requires -O1 as well as -fbounds-check I tried turning off various -O1 optimizations. I could turn off everything (and still get the bug) except if I use -fno-tree-dominator-opts or -fno-guess-branch-probability. If I use either of these flags the bug does not happen. I think something is happening related to the fact that _gfortran_runtime_error_at is marked as 'NORETURN' that is causing a bad optimization. It may be related to making registers as REG_DEAD but I haven't found a place where I think this marking is actually wrong yet. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-04-15 17:10 --- I tried comparing the tree's between hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, where I get the bug and ia64-hp-hpux11.23, where I do not see the bug and I didn't see any real differences in the trees, just differences in the names of generated variables (D.1056 vs. D.1077, etc). I used my cutdown test case, testcase.f90, which is the smallest test case I was able to create. The unnamed-unsigned variables I see are 32 bits and not 64 bits, but the odd thing that I see (on both pa and ia64) is: $ grep D.762 x*.f90.* x.f90.003t.original: D.762; x.f90.003t.original:D.762 = () size.6 * 8; The variable is given a value but never used. These 'unnamed-unsigned' variables seem to disappear during the copyrename1 phase. I think this value is the size of the array, in this case the size of ncoset. I guess the Fortran front-end generates it in case it is needed but in this case it is never needed and so gets optimized away. I don't know if it is related to the problem at all but I do wonder why it is 'unnamed-unsigned' and not given a real type name. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 04:13 --- (In reply to comment #4) > An ice is an ice. However, this is particularly nasty to me since it is > trying > to use reals for index variables. > > Have you tried to get this down to a single loop and get the ice? > > In -fdump-tree-original I see this: > > D.1619; I tried reproducing the problem on FreeBSD. It appears, as Steve stated, to be target specific. We may need to compare the output of -fdump-tree-all on hppa with a non-hppa target. > What is this? an unsigned 64 bit integer? > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 00:17 --- An ice is an ice. However, this is particularly nasty to me since it is trying to use reals for index variables. Have you tried to get this down to a single loop and get the ice? In -fdump-tree-original I see this: D.1619; What is this? an unsigned 64 bit integer? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
[Bug fortran/42169] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr41928.f90:47: internal compiler error: in store_can_be_removed_p, at ira-emit.c:371
-- sje at cup dot hp dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Component|middle-end |fortran Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-04-14 21:56:44 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
