GCC Bugzilla will be upgraded from version 4.4.9 to 5.0rc3 on Saturday, April 25, starting around 17:00 UTC. The upgrade process should only last a few minutes. Check bug 64968 for details.
Bug 35082 - 841 unexpected failures in gfortran testsuite with GMP 2.0n ABI
841 unexpected failures in gfortran testsuite with GMP 2.0n ABI
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: middle-end
4.2.4
: P3 normal
: ---
Assigned To: Not yet assigned to anyone
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-02-05 00:53 UTC by John David Anglin
Modified: 2012-02-01 20:40 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host: hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
Target: hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
Build: hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description John David Anglin 2008-02-05 00:53:31 UTC
The first one is:

Executing on host: /mnt/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran -B/
mnt/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../ /mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/
gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90   -O0   -pedantic-errors  -L/mnt/gnu/
gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/./libgfortran/.libs -L/mnt/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2
.0w-hp-hpux11.11/./libgfortran/.libs -L/mnt/gnu/gcc/objdir/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
/./libiberty  -lm   -o ./actual_array_constructor_2.exe    (timeout = 300)
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90: In fu
nction 'MAIN__':
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90:22: in
ternal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3304
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
compiler exited with status 1
output is:
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90: In fu
nction 'MAIN__':
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90:22: in
ternal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3304
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.

FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90  -O0  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90  -O0  (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90:22: in
ternal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3304

WARNING: gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_2.f90  -O0  compilation failed to
produce executable

It looks like the following change is the likely cause of this regression:

2008-02-02  Richard Henderson  <rth@redhat.com>

        PR c/34993
        * tree.c (build_type_attribute_qual_variant): Skip TYPE_DOMAIN
        for unbounded arrays.
Comment 1 dave 2008-02-05 19:46:02 UTC
Subject: Re:  [4.2 Regression] 841 unexpected failures in gfortran testsuite

>                  CC|                            |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org

I'm sorry but Richard's change isn't the cause.  There's only one
other change since the 4.2.3 release that could be the cause, but
I better confirm that it actually introduced the the regression.

Dave
Comment 2 John David Anglin 2008-02-06 18:10:03 UTC
It turns out these failures are a result of using the 2.0n ABI
with gmp-4.2.2.  This is the default for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
In all my previous testing, I had built GMP using the standard
1.x ABI.  Using the 2.0n ABI affects libmpfr.

The 2.0n ABI attempts to exploit the 64-bit registers and
instructions present in PA-RISC 2.0 when using the 32-bit HP-UX
runtime.  This is possible because wide HP-UX kernels maintain
a full 64-bit context for 32-bit applications.

I expect this problem affects all GCC versions requiring GMP for
this target.
Comment 3 Joseph S. Myers 2008-05-19 20:24:46 UTC
4.2.4 is being released, changing milestones to 4.2.5.
Comment 4 Joseph S. Myers 2008-07-04 19:52:22 UTC
Regression marker was removed, removing milestone.
Comment 5 Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01 20:20:31 UTC
Do you know if these work after the fixes you did recently?
Comment 6 dave.anglin 2012-02-01 20:40:07 UTC
On 2/1/2012 3:20 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Do you know if these work after the fixes you did recently?
Unlikely, however, I should recheck the report and try to find the problem.