|1
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
Component|fortran |libfortran
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
Patches submitted (and accepted
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Patches submitted (and accepted):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-November/059904.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112371
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112412
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin ---
This missed the gcc stage 1 deadline, but I'm still working on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109948
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #16)
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #15)
> > Created attachment 55225 [details]
> > Fix for this PR
> >
> > The attached patch substantially tidies up parse_associa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55296
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55296&action=edit
Another way to fix this problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #9)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> >
> > I haven't understood yet how (and why) temporaries are generated for
> > procedure arguments even when it is known at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array constructor,
> and the code would ICE on empty constructors of derived type.
>
Looking at the code, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #13)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> > > Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array
> > > cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin ---
Looking further at the implementation of gfc_trans_allocate_array_storage, the
size vs elem_size dance can be removed from my patch, as size is almost unused
in the onstack case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55296|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #15)
>
> Your patch also seems to fix (at first glance) the character case as well
> as type, so this appears to be the right direction.
Yet, your patch identifies a bug in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #21 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
>
> This patch fails for me on several occasions including the testsuite.
> I guess the logic was intended as follows:
>
Well, not really, it seems wasteful to use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #22 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 55300 [details]
> > Alternative patch v2
>
> This patch fails for me on several occasions including
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #22)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
> index 1c7ea900ea1..cc1dddbeb33 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-array.cc
> +++ b/gcc/for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
>
> This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings),
> and on pr69955.f90 (that's one extra __builtin_malloc).
This removes the regressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> >
> > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings),
> > and on pr69955.f90 (that's one ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> > > >
> > > > This regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86277
--- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #29)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #27)
> > > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #25)
> > > > (In reply to Mikael Mori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110241
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92887
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> > > @@ -6396,7 +6399,28 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol *
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
This is out of the scope of this PR, but in the [character, value, bind(c)]
case, only constant values and variables are supported?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
>
> > Looks good.
> > I would suggest to create an overload that avoids duplicating the
> > build_int_cst (integer_type_node,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #14)>
> Let's hope that somebody with access to such a system can run the testcase
> manually and append the output to this PR.
I have asked for an account on the compile f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #15)
> I have asked for an account on the compile farm (see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm) to have access to a powerpc machine.
It was pretty fast to get the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #18)
> There is the "obvious" problem that gfc_build_wide_string_const creates a
> bare array, whereas gfc_string_to_single_character expects a pointer
> wrapping aroun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #21 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #20)
> Created attachment 55407 [details]
> Third patch set
>
> Here's a lightly tested 3rd patch that tries to handle the chaos I created...
>
> Can you have a look?
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #22)
> Created attachment 55418 [details]
> Slighty revised version of 3rd patch
>
> I've looked at gfc_conv_string_parameter, which I was not aware of.
> This can be used f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #1)
> Harald committed an additional fix to the PR:
>
Unfortunately, the failure on big endian power remains.
Is the execution output the same as before?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
I finally got my access on gcc110 working.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/mmorin/gcc-pr110360/pr110360/pr110419_comment4
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x1684 in val (x=..., c=..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55478
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55478&action=edit
-m32 tree optimized (at -O0) dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55479
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55479&action=edit
-m32 rtl exand dump at -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55480
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55480&action=edit
-m32 final rtl dump at -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
The three previous dumps are generated with the example in comment #4.
The problem seems to turn around the val function needing to take the address
of the c argument, which is passed by value.
On powerpc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55486&action=edit
-m64tree optimized (at -O0) dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55487&action=edit
-m64 rtl expand dump at -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55488&action=edit
-m64 rtl final dump at -O0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
The tree optimized dumps are almost the same for 32 and 64 bits.
The expand dumps show more significant differences.
The 64 bits dump shows the register r4 is saved to memory with:
(insn 3 2 4 2 (set (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: abensonca at gcc dot gnu.org, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,
burnus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 55517
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55517&action=edit
Draft patch
This seems to work for this case, but I'm not sure how reliable it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Patches submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-July/059596.html
https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92178
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin ---
rs6000_pass_by_reference returns true with -m32, and false with -m64.
So the second argument is passed by reference with -m32, and by value with
-m64.
So the code in val looks right, it is the code in p cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87142
Bug 87142 depends on bug 110618, which changed state.
Bug 110618 Summary: Dependency between arguments when one is allocatable array
whose dummy is intent(out)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110618
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113152
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
Mine, I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46244
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mikael at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> Note that adding a scalar call in function one:
>
> r(1) = two (i(1), j)
>
> generates sane code:
>
> *((integer(kind=4) *) __result.0 + (sizetype) ((offset.1 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113377
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
>
> Note that the following scalar example also fails:
>
"Fortunately", it is invalid. :-)
>From 15.5.2.12 (Argument presence and restrictions on arguments not present
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 111291, which changed state.
Bug 111291 Summary: ASAN error: heap-use-after-free gcc/fortran/parse.cc:359 in
decode_statement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111291
What|Removed
||2024-02-07
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Reduced:
module m
implicit none
real, parameter :: inf = real(z'7F80')
real, parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113799
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0, 11.4.0, 12.3.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115689
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99798
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #21 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #20)
> Hi Mikael,
>
> I did regression testing on x86_64 and AArch64 and only found one test-ism.
>
> I think I understand most of the patch to be able to deal with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117258
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
There seems to be many options missing in fortran's lang.opt.urls.
A possible problem is the presence of nested tags in the source of
fortran's Option-Index.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116801
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
gcc's invoke.texi looks like:
@opindex fpic
@cindex global offset table
@cindex PIC
@item -fpic
whereas gfortran's invoke.texi has:
@opindex @code{ffree-form}
@opindex @code{ffixed-form}
@cindex options,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116801
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116886
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #0)
> If I read J3/23-007 16.9.138 correctly, the following program should
> print the minimum integer value, twice, but it prints nothing:
>
> program memain
> impl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #20)
> Right now, I am doing unsigned**unsigned. This is already a
> bit larger than I originally thought. After this is committed,
> we can still discuss how to ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With the following example (which is a simplified class_assign_4.f90 from the
testsuite), I can see in the -O2 .optimized dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin ---
Draft patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
index 4ae22a5584d..95d39e837e9 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.cc
@@ -2085,7 +2085,8 @@ gfc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119843
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |fortran
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 60515
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60515&action=edit
complete patch with changelog
This is a complete variation of the patch from comment #1.
Unfortunately it regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
Picking the smallest failing testcase:
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> PASS->FAIL:gfortran.dg/typebound_generic_6.f03
dse2 is changing this...
[local count: 1073312328]:
afab._vptr = &__v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118896
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
This area of the code has an interesting history.
TREE_READONLY was introduced for virtual tables with r0-114543 together with
the fix for PR51809
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-d
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
See the patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-June/687030.html
at gcc dot gnu.org |mikael at gcc dot
gnu.org
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|--- |15.2
Last reconfirmed||2025-06-19
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Mikael
901 - 986 of 986 matches
Mail list logo
