On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:13:09 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:59 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > A binary search has led to the cause of a serious regression on > >> > mainline with gfortran at *all optimization levels (ie., -O0, -O1 > >> > and -O2)*. The problematic commit is > >> > > >> > 2005-02-13 Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > >> > PR mudflap/19319 > >> > * gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rhs) [CALL_EXPR]: Make return > >> > slot explicit. > >> > >> I reverted this change shortly after the commit. Have you tested again > >> with updated sources? > >> > >> I plan to commit a corrected version today. > > > > I noticed the problem early yesterday morning and have since been > > trying to determine the (quilty) commit. A binary search and > > make bootstrap can be a length process :-) I'll update to HEAD > > and see what happens. Thanks for the note. > > If it was still broken yesterday morning, it wouldn't have been the above > change, as I reverted it on Sunday. That leaves the fold_indirect_ref > changes, which I reapplied on Monday. > > Those changes are merely expanding INDIRECT_REF folding to occur during > gimplification. My guess would be that the fortran front end is doing > something inappropriate with pointers, but it's hard to say without a > testcase. > > Could someone on the fortran team take a look at this and/or point me at a > testcase I can just feed to the compiler to see the problem?
Bad news. The problem is still present in HEAD, ie., source from 3 hours ago. Even worse news is cutting down the BLAS test program can be a chore. I'll see what I can do. To be clear, gfortran works fine with -D '2005-02-12 22:30' sources, which excludes the above commit. The -D '2005-02-12 22:45' sources include the above commit and gfortran has a serious regression. You reverted the entire commit, then re-applied what portion of the commit? ChangeLog does not reflect any of these manipulations with any kind of accurate date. -- Steve
