https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 04:51:24PM +0000, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900 > > --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 03:22:50PM +0000, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900 > > > > --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > > The original test in comment 0 still fails at r256917 on darwin with > > > > pr83900.f90:4:0: > > > > print *, matmul(a, b) > > > > internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2402 > > > > Should I reopen this PR or open a new one? > > > > Interesting. gfortran.dg/matmul_17.f90 is essentially the > code in comment #0 without the IO statement. The backtrace > in comment #0 is caused by the assert() I removed, which is > bogus. I think a new PR is needed. It seems matmul is > hosed > > integer, parameter :: a(3,2) = 1 > real, parameter :: b(2,3) = 2 > real, parameter :: c(3,3) = matmul(a,b) > real d(3,3) > d = matmul(a,b) > print '(9F5.1)', c > print '(9F5.1)', d > % gfcx -o z -fno-frontend-optimize a.f90 > % ./z > 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 > 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > > -fno-frontend-optimize is not needed to get the above. Something is definitely odd in the tree dump. Lines edited to get < 80 chars. { real(kind=4) d[9]; static real(kind=4) c[9] = {4., 4., 4., 4., 4., 4., 4., 4., 4.}; { static real(kind=4) A.0[9] = {0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.}; (void) __builtin_memcpy ((void *) &d, (void *) &A.0, 36); { struct __st_parameter_dt dt_parm.1;
