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 07:14:35PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:13:09 -0800, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:59 -0800, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > A binary search has led to the cause of a serious regression on
> >> > mainline with gfortran at *all optimization levels (ie., -O0, -O1
> >> > and -O2)*. The problematic commit is
> >> >
> >> > 2005-02-13 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
> >> >
> >> > PR mudflap/19319
> >> > * gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rhs) [CALL_EXPR]: Make return
> >> > slot explicit.
> >>
> >> I reverted this change shortly after the commit. Have you tested again
> >> with updated sources?
> >>
> >> I plan to commit a corrected version today.
> >
> > I noticed the problem early yesterday morning and have since been
> > trying to determine the (quilty) commit. A binary search and
> > make bootstrap can be a length process :-) I'll update to HEAD
> > and see what happens. Thanks for the note.
>
> If it was still broken yesterday morning, it wouldn't have been the above
> change, as I reverted it on Sunday. That leaves the fold_indirect_ref
> changes, which I reapplied on Monday.
>
> Those changes are merely expanding INDIRECT_REF folding to occur during
> gimplification. My guess would be that the fortran front end is doing
> something inappropriate with pointers, but it's hard to say without a
> testcase.
>
> Could someone on the fortran team take a look at this and/or point me at a
> testcase I can just feed to the compiler to see the problem?
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.
--
Steve