g++-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.0 20040319 (prerelease) miscompiles the src/Layout/tests/ugl_test2.cpp src/Functions/tests/rngArray.cpp test with -g -fno-exceptions in an unoptimized build. This is a regression to g++-3.3 (GCC) 3.3.4 20040301 (prerelease) which does fine with this testcases (and flags). It is also a regression from g++ (GCC) 3.4.0 20040302 (prerelease) which does fine with this testcases too. POOMA is current CVS, configured with --serial --debug. In an optimized build using -g -O2 -fno-exceptions, the src/Functions/tests/rngArray.cpp testcase is miscompiled which is a regression to This is a regression to g++-3.3 (GCC) 3.3.4 20040301 (prerelease) which does fine with this testcases (and flags). It does not work with g++ (GCC) 3.4.0 20040302 (prerelease). It does work with -O instead of -O2 though. Note that g++ (GCC) 3.4.0 20040302 is the newest g++ I have available before the failing release. I'm not so worried about the rngArray failure, but about the ugl_test2 failure which indicates a C++ correctness problem probably related to Marks massive C++ fixes. (pls. assign this PR to him) Please ping me, if you like me to provide a preprocessed testcase as this will be huge and probably not suitable for debugging this kind of problems. Richard.
Some kind of testcase will be necessary, but it would be a great help if you could already try to sizzle it down a little bit. POOMA testcases are not really our favorites due to their size and complexity, and as you are well aware of, have frequently been sitting around a while until someone felt an urge to reduce them :-( W.
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-23 13:57 ------- > Some kind of testcase will be necessary, but it would be a great help > if you could already try to sizzle it down a little bit. POOMA testcases > are not really our favorites due to their size and complexity, and as > you are well aware of, have frequently been sitting around a while until > someone felt an urge to reduce them :-( > > W. Ok, I thought I just build and verify g++-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.0 20040323 (prerelease), and the failure still occours. It doesn't occour on ia64-linux though (same compiler). I'll try to spend some time reducing the failure myself. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de> WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-23 13:57 ------- > Some kind of testcase will be necessary, but it would be a great help > if you could already try to sizzle it down a little bit. POOMA testcases > are not really our favorites due to their size and complexity, and as > you are well aware of, have frequently been sitting around a while until > someone felt an urge to reduce them :-( The ugl_test2 failure looks artificial, it's a likely broken testcase that happened to work with earlier compilers. It's a complicated inheritance hierarchy and asserting on some default constructed data - maybe the right/wrong method is selected. I'm going to try to reduce this somewhat. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de> WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/
The rngArray failure is gone with g++-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.0 20040331 (prerelease). The "fixed" ugl_test2 testcase works, too (but it is still unresolved wether the original testcase regression is a regression or just undefined behavior - I was unable to reduce the testcase and still get repeatable success/failure with different compilers). So I think this is sufficiently fixed now. Richard.