On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:48:08PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > My fortran-fu is however not at level to figure out what precisely is
> > going wrong in those two testcases.
>
> I'll try to reduce the do_3.F90 code to a minimum testcase. Unfortunately,
> my middle/back-end knowledge is probably much worse than your Fortran-fu.
>
Honza,
I've reduce do_3.F90 to the following code:
program test
integer :: count
integer(kind=1) :: i1
integer(kind=1), parameter :: h = huge(h)
count = 0
do i1 = -huge(i1)-1_1, huge(i1), 1_1
count = count + 1
end do
if (test_i1(-h-1_1, h, 1_1, h+1_1) /= int(h) * 2 + 2) call abort
contains
function test_i1 (from, too, step, final) result(res)
integer(kind=1), intent(in) :: from, too, step, final
integer(kind=1) :: i
integer :: res
res = 0
do i = from, too, step
res = res + 1
end do
if (i /= final) call abort
end function test_i1
end program test
A couple comments:
1) AFAIK, gfortran will only inline CONTAIN'd function (see the contains
statement above).
There are essentially static functions private to the test program.
2) If I comment out either IF statement, then the test will not abort. In
particular,
in the function test_i1, i == final to the 'call abort' is never executed,
but
apparently inlining doesn't like the IF statement.
3) integer(kind=1) is equivalent to int8_t. I'll see if I can translate the
Fortran
into a failing C program.
--
Steve
