Dear Mikael,

I have regstrapped revision r220715 with your patch. It fixes the tests in
PR60898 without regression.

> [*] I have a few failing testcases (also without the patch), namely the
> following; does this ring a bell ?
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/erf_3.F90
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_g0_7.f08
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/nan_7.f90
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_3.f90
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/round_4.f90

I don't see these failures on x86_64-apple-darwin14:

Native configuration is x86_64-apple-darwin14.1.0

                === gfortran tests ===


Running target unix/-m32
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bind_c_vars.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)

                === gfortran Summary for unix/-m32 ===

# of expected passes            52071
# of unexpected failures        1
# of expected failures          81
# of unsupported tests          241

Running target unix/-m64
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bind_c_vars.f90   -g -flto  (test for excess errors)

                === gfortran Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            52394
# of unexpected failures        1
# of expected failures          81
# of unsupported tests          85

                === gfortran Summary ===

# of expected passes            104465
# of unexpected failures        2
# of expected failures          162
# of unsupported tests          326
/opt/gcc/p_build/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran  version 5.0.0 20150215 
(experimental) [trunk revision 220715p2a] (GCC) 

                === libgomp tests ===


Running target unix/-m32

                === libgomp Summary for unix/-m32 ===

# of expected passes            6231
# of unsupported tests          294

Running target unix/-m64

                === libgomp Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes            6231
# of unsupported tests          294

                === libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes            12462
# of unsupported tests          588

Which platform are you using?

(the gfortran.dg/bind_c_vars.f90 failure is pr54852).

Thanks for the patch,

Dominique

Reply via email to