Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-18 Thread Steve Kargl
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 05:16:29PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > >>I suspect that the problem is that the transformations > >>fold_indirect_ref_1 > >>is doing on arrays d

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-18 Thread Thomas Koenig
> Your analysis is correct, see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR20030 :-) A fix has already > been committed. Thanks, I should have searched the PRs more carefully before starting work on this :-)

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-18 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Feb 18, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: I suspect that the problem is that the transformations fold_indirect_ref_1 is doing on arrays don't mix well with how fortran handles arrays. I have been trying to look at the problem i

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-18 Thread Tobias Schlüter
Thomas Koenig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >>I suspect that the problem is that the transformations fold_indirect_ref_1 >>is doing on arrays don't mix well with how fortran handles arrays. > > > I have been trying to look at the problem in the BLAS sourc

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-18 Thread Thomas Koenig
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > I suspect that the problem is that the transformations fold_indirect_ref_1 > is doing on arrays don't mix well with how fortran handles arrays. I have been trying to look at the problem in the BLAS sources, and I find it hard to deb

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-16 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:24:58 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-16 Thread Jason Merrill
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:24:58 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-16 Thread Steve Kargl
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: > >> > >

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-16 Thread Jason Merrill
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 >> > ma

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-16 Thread Steve Kargl
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)*. Th

Re: Major regression on mainline

2005-02-16 Thread Jason Merrill
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 PROTECT