[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #33 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-11-29 07:30:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #31) > As for the backport, I think the patch is absolutely risk-free, and it should > have been approved for 4.7 even though it doesn't fulfill the f

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #32 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-11-09 10:05:18 UTC --- > If you can use the additional free time to walk over to my > brother's office, then please say 'Hi' to him. Otherwise the faculty meeting > will have to do :-) Let's

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #31 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-11-09 09:43:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #30) > (In reply to comment #29) > > I committed the C-only version of the patch as the issues mentioned in > > comment > > #27 couldn't be addressed before s

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #30 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-11-09 07:31:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #29) > I committed the C-only version of the patch as the issues mentioned in comment > #27 couldn't be addressed before stage3. Thanks Tobi! I

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #28 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-11-08 15:46:13 UTC --- Author: tobi Date: Thu Nov 8 15:46:07 2012 New Revision: 193329 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193329 Log: PR fortran/51727 * module.c (sorted_pointer_info

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #27 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-28 11:15:24 UTC --- There were concerns about error handling in out-of-memory conditions which I addressed in a separate patch . This patch go

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortr

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #25 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-15 14:14:12 UTC --- Just to provide some additional numbers on how important this patch is for practical development (and of course to +1 on backports) for a 'typical code change' on a CP

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #24 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-13 12:45:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) > I've tested the patch with (an older version of) the 4.7 branch, and it works > fine for CP2K. it doesn't apply cleanly to 4.6, so no test

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #23 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-13 12:28:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #22) > Created attachment 28440 [details] > patch that doesn't use c++ I've tested the patch with (an older version of) the 4.7 branch, and it work

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #22 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-13 11:29:41 UTC --- Created attachment 28440 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28440 patch that doesn't use c++ Here's a patch that works essentially the same way, but doesn't use C

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #21 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-13 09:32:10 UTC --- Hm, I don't know about anonymous symbols. If they exist and end up in modules (which I honestly don't know), I would hope that they would obtain their number from some counter, wh

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #20 from Simon Baldwin 2012-10-13 09:26:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > ...Since we now process these symbols in a deterministic order, > the integers of the symbols added during each iteration are also > deterministic.

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #19 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-13 08:31:39 UTC --- Simon, I don't think the 'integer's are functions of the pointers once you process the symbols in a defined order. The non-determinism was caused by traversing the pointer_info tr

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #18 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-13 08:13:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) > Created attachment 28425 [details] > Patch for testing thanks... now repeated CP2K compiles give identical '.mod's, and of course also om

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #17 from Ollie Wild 2012-10-13 08:08:49 UTC --- I'm on vacation until Mon, Oct. 15. For compiler related questions, please email c-compiler-t...@google.com. If you need to contact a manager, please email lp-m...@google.com.

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #16 from Simon Baldwin 2012-10-13 08:08:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > ... > This has not been the case since 2007, even though it appears to make a lot of > sense... I noticed the same thing while investigating thi

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #15 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-11 14:01:27 UTC --- I'm sorry that I'm spamming your inboxes, but I only now read the comment in front of write_symbol1, and it says something that I was wondering about all this time, so I want to at

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #28424|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #28410|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #28372|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tobi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #9 from Simon Baldwin 2012-10-08 09:32:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Also reported here: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00075.html To add a little more detail, here is one diff seen between two .mod files

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-06 12:52:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Created attachment 28372 [details] > Candidate patch actually... looking at the patch, don't you need to deal with the if statements that ret

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-06 12:48:39 UTC --- The main difference between 'good' and 'bad' seems to be the 'header' lines bad: () (('arch_topology' 'machine_architecture_types' 2)) () good: () (('arch_t

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-06 12:47:19 UTC --- Created attachment 28374 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28374 good module

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-06 12:46:36 UTC --- Created attachment 28373 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28373 bad module

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-10-06 12:42:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > > 2012-10-06 Tobias Schlüter > > PR fortran/51727 > * module.c (write_generic): Traverse tree in left-to-right order. If tested that thi

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-06 11:41:23 UTC --- Created attachment 28372 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28372 Candidate patch Here's a patch which fixes one case of module contents not being written in a def

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Schlüter 2012-10-05 19:35:36 UTC --- I'm not in a position to test, but write_generic in module.c makes no effort to traverse the tree in a left to right order, i.e. the line write_generic ((gfc_symtree *)st->right);

[Bug fortran/51727] Changing module files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added CC||simonb at google dot com -