This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Major regression on mainline
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:24:58 -0800, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Bad news. The problem is still present in HEAD, ie., source from
> > 3 hours ago. Even worse news is cutting down the BLAS test
> > program can be a chore. I'll see what I can do.
> >
> > To be clear, gfortran works fine with -D '2005-02-12 22:30' sources,
> > which excludes the above commit. The -D '2005-02-12 22:45' sources
> > include the above commit and gfortran has a serious regression. You
> > reverted the entire commit, then re-applied what portion of the
> > commit? ChangeLog does not reflect any of these manipulations
> > with any kind of accurate date.
>
> Yes, I just added a [reverted temporarily] note to the ChangeLog entry. I
> reapplied the portion marked c++/16405, which doesn't have the [reverted]
> note on it.
>
> I suspect that the problem is that the transformations fold_indirect_ref_1
> is doing on arrays don't mix well with how fortran handles arrays. Could
> someone familiar with the fortran frontend take a look at that function?
>
Well, I looked at fold_indirect_ref_1 and the gfortran source. I
have no idea what that function does nor the code path in gfortran
source that would lead to it.
I just ran the test programs for LAPACK itself on i386-*-freebsd,
and as I suspected there are numerous regressions with its testsuite.
Until this patch is reverted or the cause of the problems with gfortran
(are ada and java also effected?) are found and fix that almost all other
development on gfortran is useless because we can't perform any
meaningful tests.
--
Steve