On 10.09.21 17:39, Andreas Schwab wrote:
This misses the m68k extended real format.
* ISO_Fortran_binding.h (CFI_type_long_double)
(CFI_type_long_double_Complex) [LDBL_MANT_DIG == 64 &&
LDBL_MIN_EXP == -16382 && LDBL_MAX_EXP == 16384]: Define.
LGTM – thanks!
Tobias
---
l
Dear Harald, hi all,
On 12.09.21 20:40, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
in find_substring_ref we erroneously handled given substring start and end
indices as unsigned integers. However, gives indices could be negative,
which is legal as long as end < start, leading to a string of length zero.
On 07.09.21 23:44, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
When adding the initializer for an array, we need to make sure that
array bounds are properly simplified if that array is a PARAMETER.
Otherwise the generated initializer could be wrong and screw up
subsequent simplifications, see PR.
The minim
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> I realized last week that having multilib-specific versions of
> ISO_Fortran_binding.h (generated by running the compiler to ask what kinds it
> supports) was still broken outside of the test support; the directory where
> it's being installed isn't on
Hi Gerald,
On 13.09.21 17:56, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
This broke bootstrap on i586-unknown-freebsd11:
In file included from
.../GCC-HEAD/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c:30:
.../GCC-HEAD/libgfortran/ISO_Fortran_binding.h:255:2:
error: #error "Can't determine kind of long double
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 06:32:56PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 13.09.21 17:56, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > This broke bootstrap on i586-unknown-freebsd11:
> >
> >In file included from
> > .../GCC-HEAD/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c:30:
> >.../GCC-HEAD/libgfortran/ISO_Fortran
On 9/13/21 10:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 06:32:56PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 13.09.21 17:56, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
This broke bootstrap on i586-unknown-freebsd11:
In file included from
.../GCC-HEAD/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c:30:
.../GCC-HE
On 13.09.21 18:59, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 9/13/21 10:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 06:32:56PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 13.09.21 17:56, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
This broke bootstrap on i586-unknown-freebsd11:
% egrep -r '#define.*LDBL_(MANT_DIG|MIN_EXP|MAX_EXP)' /u
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 07:07:01PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Regarding FreeBSD: Does this output different values? – If yes, we know
> what to do, otherwise – hmm.
>
> [...]
>
> > > Wouldn't it be better to use the __LDBL_* macros anyway and not rely on
> > > float.h? The header doesn't want
On Sep 13 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> % egrep -r '#define.*LDBL_(MANT_DIG|MIN_EXP|MAX_EXP)' /usr/include/
> /usr/include/x86/float.h:#define LDBL_MANT_DIG 64
> /usr/include/x86/float.h:#define LDBL_MIN_EXP (-16381)
> /usr/include/x86/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP 16384
>
> This looks like it
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 05:56:53PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> % egrep -r '#define.*LDBL_(MANT_DIG|MIN_EXP|MAX_EXP)' /usr/include/
> /usr/include/x86/float.h:#define LDBL_MANT_DIG 64
> /usr/include/x86/float.h:#define LDBL_MIN_EXP (-16381)
> /usr/include/x86/float.h:#define LDBL_MAX_EXP 163
On 9/13/21 11:07 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On 13.09.21 18:59, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 9/13/21 10:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> Wouldn't it be better to use the
__LDBL_* macros anyway and not rely on
float.h? The header doesn't want to test what float.h tells about the
long double type, bu
12 matches
Mail list logo
