On Sun, Jul 06, 2025 at 08:43:06AM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > Hi Steve, > > On 7/6/2025 12:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 05:20:02PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote: > > > diff --git a/libgfortran/configure b/libgfortran/configure > > > index 9898a94a372..971f1e9df5e 100755 > > > --- a/libgfortran/configure > > > +++ b/libgfortran/configure > > > @@ -16413,7 +16413,7 @@ else > > > We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, > > > since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers > > > incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ > > > -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) > > > +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) > > > << 31)) > > > > What is the purpose of this change? > > > > Since I don't have root/sudo permissions on my devbox, I manually downloaded > and compiled the autoconf 2.69 tarball. This means there might be some minor > discrepancies compared to the version shipped with OS distributions. > > I suspect the issue could be related to platforms where `off_t` is 32-bit, > causing a left shift of 62 to result in undefined behavior. The commit at > https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git/commit/?id=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e > seems to support my theory. >
This patch is not okay to commit with this change. Changing LARGE_OFF_T has nothing to do with implementing the half-cycle trig functions. -- Steve
