This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:15:45 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-69368-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #78 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
>
> --- Comment #77 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #72)
> >
> > Patch as posted passed bootstrap & regtest. Adjusted according to
> > comments but not tested otherwise - please somebody throw at
> > unpatched 416.gamess.
>
> Still miscompares on aarch64, I'm afraid. (Both with and without
> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations.)
>
> Also where Jakub wrote:
> > If you want to go this way, I'd at least key it off DECL_COMMON on the decl.
> > And instead of multiplying max_size by 2 perhaps just add BITS_PER_UNIT?
>
> I wonder why you prefer setting such an arbitrary guess at max_size rather than
> going with -1 which is defined as "unknown" ?
That would pessimize it too much IMHO.