[gfortran testsuite, committed] Re: gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90
Steve Kargl
sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Mon Jun 6 06:11:00 GMT 2005
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:01:38AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Tobias Schl?ter <tobias.schlueter@physik.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
>
> F> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >> The following tests fail for me on Linux/x86-64 now:
> >>
> >> gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90 -O1 execution test
> >> gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90 -O2 execution test
> >> gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
> >> gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test
> >> gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops execution test
> >> gfortran.dg/forall_1.f90 -O3 -g execution test
> >>
> >> Note that the test work correctly compiled as 32-bit binaries - they
> >> just fail as 64-bit tests. The output is an "Aborted".
> >>
> > ...
> >> Tobias, any ideas? Is the code they are testing not 64-bit clean?
> >
> > The test made the assumption that
> > if (i /= 0) i = 0
> > means that even if i is uninitialized in the beginning it will be zero
> > afterwards. Since this is the only thing that could be affected by
> > optimization, I've committed this change to the mainline and I will also put
> > this on the 4.0 branch once testing finishes.
> >
> > Does this cure the problem?
>
> No, it does not for me,
forall_1.f90 fails on FreeBSD even without optimization. The
failure is with the third "call abort", but I haven't been
able to deduce the problem.
--
Steve
More information about the Fortran
mailing list