From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 53533 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2016 11:36:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 53515 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2016 11:36:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=1,3,8, UD:vla-ptype.exp, vlaptypeexp, vla-ptype.exp X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:36:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7853116576; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id k1uFj+dqKf1h; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331D111656A; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1FDBF406C6; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:36:15 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Walfred Tedeschi Cc: qiyaoltc@gmail.com, "Heckel, Bernhard" , keven.boell@linux.intel.com, gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fort_dyn_array: add basic fortran dyn array support Message-ID: <20160209113615.GE15342@adacore.com> References: <56B89C78.9050808@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <56B89C78.9050808@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 > I don't think I will be able to fix the failures on the mentioned > hosts/targets before you > create the branch, as I need to replicate the environment on my end first to > start investigating. > Therefore I suggest to revert the change for now. Sorry if this caused any > inconvenience. We need a good reason for reverting (Eg: regressions in pre-existing features). From what i read below: > Bernhard and I we have investigated the issues reported. Issues were > reproduced by using the newest GCC. Looks like the issues are independent > from the target at first sight. > > Issues could be divided into 3 categories: > > 1. Issue root causes to GCC 5.x and Fortran "associated" intrinsic. > Compiler is not reporting the “Associated property correctly. (see test case > 1) > Affected tests: > gdb.fortran/vla-ptype.exp: ptype pvla not initialized > gdb.fortran/vla-value.exp: print undefined pvla > gdb.fortran/vla-value.exp: print non-associated &pvla > gdb.fortran/vla-value.exp: print undefined pvla(1,3,8) > gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: evaluate not associated vla > gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: create local variable pvla2_not_associated > gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: info type variable pvla2_not_associated > > 2. Test issues. Test take into account that array created is initialized by > default. Initialization depends on the compiler also Fortran standard does > not state the need for initialization. > Affected tests: > gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: evaluate allocated vla > > 3. GCC or GDB error. Breakpoint is completely off, breakpoint on return > line is triggered before the execution of the functions body. Deeper > investigation should be done to define the real issue. > Affected tests: > gdb.cp/vla-cxx.exp Are these regressions? Or just showing that the new feature are not working well with the newer GCC? I fear that, reverting central changes at this stage could destabilize the branch, and therefore we need to be very careful as to what we do. -- Joel