Hi Jakub,
So, the following patch adds -fbuilding-libgfortran option and uses
it together with TARGET_GLIBC_M* checks to decide whether to use
libquadmath APIs (for the IEEE quad kind=16 if -fbuilding-libgfortran
and not glibc or glibc is older than 2.32) or glibc 2.32 APIs
(otherwise). This
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 03:25:57PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > 00251038 06ad0015 R_PPC64_JMP_SLOT
> > > __cabsieee128 + 0
> > > All these should for POWER_IEEE128 use atan2q@QUADMATH_1.0 etc.
> >
> > So, seems all these come from f951 compiled sources
Hi Jakub,
00251038 06ad0015 R_PPC64_JMP_SLOT
__cabsieee128 + 0
All these should for POWER_IEEE128 use atan2q@QUADMATH_1.0 etc.
So, seems all these come from f951 compiled sources.
For user code, I think the agreement was if you want to use successfull
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 12:29:25PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> we don't do it consistently:
> readelf -Wr
> /home/jakub/gcc/obj38/powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu/libgfortran/.libs/libgfortran.so.5.0.0
> | grep ieee128
> 00250310 01280015 R_PPC64_JMP_SLOT
>
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 09:01:54PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> On 06.01.22 06:00, Michael Meissner via Fortran wrote:
> > I pushed the patch to the branch.
>
> Test results are looking quite good right now.
I've just tried to build libgfortran on an old glibc system
(gcc112.fsffrance.org) an
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 09:01:54PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> On 06.01.22 06:00, Michael Meissner via Fortran wrote:
> > I pushed the patch to the branch.
>
> Test results are looking quite good right now.
>
> What is still missing is the conversion for unformatted I/O, both
> ways. I'll star
On 06.01.22 06:00, Michael Meissner via Fortran wrote:
I pushed the patch to the branch.
Test results are looking quite good right now.
What is still missing is the conversion for unformatted I/O, both
ways. I'll start doing some stuff on it. Just one question:
What are functions that I can
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:07:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > clearly there is still work to fix (but seems e.g. most of the lto tests
> > > are related to the gnu attributes stuff:( ).
> >
> > This is looking better than wha
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:07:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > clearly there is still work to fix (but seems e.g. most of the lto tests
> > > are related to the gnu attributes stuff:( ).
> >
> > This is looking better than wha
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:07:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > clearly there is still work to fix (but seems e.g. most of the lto tests
> > > are related to the gnu attributes stuff:( ).
> >
> > This is looking better than wha
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > clearly there is still work to fix (but seems e.g. most of the lto tests
> > are related to the gnu attributes stuff:( ).
>
> This is looking better than what I expected. Apart from LTO, I expect
I've just verified that LTO is b
11 matches
Mail list logo
