This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: PATCH: PR libfortran/25305: [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:12:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: PATCH: PR libfortran/25305: [4.0 regression]: libfortran failed fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K
- References: <20051208074215.GA28082@lucon.org> <4397F50B.5080003@verizon.net>
Could please please take a look at this 4.0 regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
and approve the patch?
Thanks.
H.J.
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:55:39AM -0800, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00874.html
> >
> >caused fma3d in SPEC CPU 2K to fail. It has this change:
> >
> >@ -293,7 +292,7 @@ write_block (int length)
> > {
> > char *dest;
> >
> >- if (!is_internal_unit() && current_unit->bytes_left < length)
> >+ if (current_unit->bytes_left < length)
> > {
> > generate_error (ERROR_EOR, NULL);
> > return NULL;
> >
> >which wasn't even mentioned in ChangeLog. Reverting it fixed this
> >regression.
> >
>
> I apologize for missing that in the ChangeLog. I do not have access to
> SPEC benchmarks. Could you please check to make sure you do not see this
> regression in 4.2. (4.2 has that same change in write_block)
>
> I think the difference is I was not able to get the internal unit array I/O
> patch into 4.0 because it needed another patch that had not gone in, etc,
> etc, etc. 4.0 is very much out of sync with 4.1 and 4.2. The problem did
> not show in regression testing which I always do before committing.
>
> Thanks for fixing in 4.0,
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry