I think it is
On Apr 4, 2025 at 2:40 PM +0800, NightStrike , wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 2:02 PM NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:04 AM NightStrike wrote:
> > >
> > > Between GCC 9 and 10, the following code now errors out:
> > >
> > > integer function fcn(x)
> > > impli
Thank you, Iain.
I have adjusted a longer line and added an intro sentence before changelog
record.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:24 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Aug 2024, at 13:17, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:03 P
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 8:03 PM FX Coudert wrote:
> > Thank you for responding.
> > I have added a changelog (is this a correct way?).
>
> Content seems ok, lines are maybe too long. Check with
> contrib/gcc-changelog/git_check_commit.py before pushing.
> Once that is fine, OK to push.
>
Looks l
Thank you for responding.
I have added a changelog (is this a correct way?).
Sergey
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:58 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I dropped a change to the test file, since you have fixed it
> appropriately, and switched to Apple libm convention for flags, as you have
> suggest
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 6:25 PM Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:47 PM FX Coudert wrote:
>
>> Can you post an updated version of the patch, following the first round
>> of review?
>>
>> FX
>
>
If you got some time, please review this.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:47 PM FX Coudert wrote:
> Can you post an updated version of the patch, following the first round of
> review?
>
> FX
Sorry for a delay, done.
I dropped a change to the test file, since you have fixed it appropriately,
and switched to Apple libm convention for flags,
to wait for the next major version. Once we have the initial
support for this, it can be improved further on.
P. S. If someone else could run tests also, that would be great.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 12:15 AM Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 6:07 AM FX Coudert wrote:
>
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 6:07 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> > This part of the patch is quite old, but from the remaining log it looks
> I got an error here:
> > Now on a second thought, this did not require a fix perhaps. We can drop
> it.
>
> I have addressed this:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-pa
>From f19315cd425d0a23c02ba1be9c24c2a1f82cb47c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergey Fedorov
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:55:44 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] libgfortran: implement fpu-macppc for Darwin, support IEEE
arithmetic
Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov
---
libgfortran/config/fpu-macppc.h |
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 5:23 AM FX Coudert wrote:
> Hi,
> The core of the powerpc-FPU manipulation is okay for me. Some comments
> below.
>
Thank you for reviewing!
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/signaling_2_c.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/signaling_2_c.c
> > @@ -1,3 +1,1
363
+/Users/svacchanda/Develop/gcc_build_20240628_ieee/gcc/gfortran version
15.0.0 20240608 (experimental) (GCC)
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:58 AM Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> From 50fc05566ba7479844949d727233c04a5e8151e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sergey Fedorov
> Date: Sat, 29
>From 50fc05566ba7479844949d727233c04a5e8151e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergey Fedorov
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 14:55:44 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] libgfortran: implement fpu-macppc for Darwin, support IEEE
arithmetic
Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov
---
.../gfortran.dg/ieee/signaling_2_
Comments there refer to libgfortran/config/fpu* – yeah, it is not IEEE
module itself, but those config files enable building IEEE module, and
Darwin is not currently among supported systems.
Unless, of course, comments are off:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/7a65ab6b5f38d3018ffd456f278a9fd8
Could someone please clarify this for me?
Comments in gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/round_4.f90 imply that the test in
its existing form will not work for IBM long double, and it is disabled for
powerpc*-*-linux.
This should apply to macOS just as well, however superficially it does not:
for powerpc*-
14 matches
Mail list logo
