View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
JohnMansell
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 18 Location: Darlington
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 10:28 am Post subject: AMD backend failure:Can't complete RBP relative address |
|
|
This compiler error occurs in the following fragment
Code: |
! Compile fails with FTN95 /64
!
subroutine broken
integer i,j
character(3),parameter :: noyes(2)=(/'no ','yes'/)
character(3) :: test,workaround
!
test = 'something'
do 20 j = 1,2
workaround = noyes(j)
do i = 1,3
! *** AMD backend failure:Can't complete RBP relative address
if (test(i:i)/=noyes(j)(i:i)) exit
! works fine
if (test(i:i)/=workaround(i:i)) exit
end do
20 continue
end subroutine broken
|
Compilation also succeeds when noyes is initialized in DATA. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7928 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the feedback. We will aim to have a fix shortly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7928 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This bug has now been fixed for the next release. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
simon
Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 268
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am getting the same error message at the start of a FUNCTION definition, where the FUNCTION is part of a generic interface. Is the fix expected to resolve this issue too? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7928 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you can post some sample code then I will check it out for you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dgurok
Joined: 26 May 2011 Posts: 66
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm using version 8.05 and I get the following errors when I try to compile my sources:
Code: | *** AMD backend failure:Invalid instruction in i_emit
*** AMD backend failure: argument number 7 is locked |
At the moment I don't have small examples for your testing.
That's my next error using scc with option /64:
Code: | [Silverfrost SCC/WIN32 Ver 3.88 Copyright (c) Silverfrost Ltd 2016]
3/0257 inline int ios::setf(int flags, int mask)
2/0113 virtual streampos seekpos(streampos, int = ios::in | ios::out
);
*** Constant cannot be converted to type int (In include file
D:\Darius\Silverfrost\FTN95\INCLUDE\streambu.h)
2/0112 int = ios::in | ios::out);
*** Constant cannot be converted to type int (In include file
D:\Darius\Silverfrost\FTN95\INCLUDE\streambu.h)
0102 }
*** Attempt to emit 32-bit instruction in /64 mode
3 ERRORS [<FILEDIAL_MAIN> SCC/WIN32 Ver 3.88]
*** Compilation failed |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7928 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. Please let us know when you have some sample code that illustrate the problems. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DietmarSiepmann
Joined: 03 Jun 2013 Posts: 279
|
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a code segment which does not compile if preprocessor symbol BAD is defined but which compiles successfully if preprocessor symbol BAD is not defined:
Code segment Code: | FUNCTION IMOD(I1,I2)
#if BAD
INTEGER*2 IMOD,I1,I2
#else
INTEGER*4 IMOD,I1,I2
#endif
IMOD=I1-I1/I2*I2
RETURN
END |
If the code section is saved to file imod.for then executing command
ftn95 imod.for /64 /Cfpp /define BAD 1
results in error
*** AMD backend failure:Invalid instruction in i_emit
whereas executing command
ftn95 imod.for /64 /Cfpp
is successful and produces file imod.obj. The version of ftn95 used is 8.05.0. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7928 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the feedback. I have logged this as a bug that needs fixing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7928 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dietmar
This has now been fixed for the next release. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dgurok
Joined: 26 May 2011 Posts: 66
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Paul,
is the latest release still 8.05.0? Do you know when a next release comes out? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silverfrost Site Admin
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 Posts: 191 Location: Manchester
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
We don't have a fixed release date as yet. It will probably be in a month or two. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7928 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the latest release is 8.05. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|