Hi Harald, dear all,
On 14.10.21 23:27, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
the attached patch adds a check for the shape of arrays in derived type
constructors. This brings it in line with other major brands.
...
In developing the patch I encountered a difficulty with testcase
dec_structure_6.f90
Thanks, Jakub, for starting this discussion, and to everyone who weighed in.
The conversation
went in a number of different directions, so I'd like to summarize my
understanding of points
where I think there was agreement. I'd also like to separate out short-term
considerations
for powerpc64le
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 08:50:08AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Thanks, Jakub, for starting this discussion, and to everyone who weighed in.
> The conversation
> went in a number of different directions, so I'd like to summarize my
> understanding of points
> where I think there was agreement.
On 15.10.21 16:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
[...]
when one compiles
integer function foo ()
foo = precision (0.0_16)
end function foo
integer function bar ()
bar = range (0.0_16)
end function bar
with -mabi=ibmlongdouble, I see 31 and 291, while with -mabi=ieeelongdouble
33 and 4931. The 0
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 08:05:38PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > with -mabi=ibmlongdouble, I see 31 and 291, while with -mabi=ieeelongdouble
> > 33 and 4931. The 0.0_8 precision/range values are 15 and 307, so neither
> > precision of C long double if it is double-double nor range matches
> > a
On 2021/10/14 7:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:20:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Thinking more about the Fortran case for !$omp sections, there is an
ambiguity.
!$omp sections
block
!$omp section
end block
is clear and !$omp end sections is optional,
On 15.10.21 20:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 08:05:38PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
with -mabi=ibmlongdouble, I see 31 and 291, while with -mabi=ieeelongdouble
33 and 4931. The 0.0_8 precision/range values are 15 and 307, so neither
precision of C long double if it is doubl
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 02:44:12AM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> The patch currently does not allow strictly-structured BLOCK for
> sections/parallel sections,
> since I was referencing the 5.1 spec while writing it, although that is
> trivially fixable.
> (was sensing a bit odd why those two co
Hi Tobias, all,
> > In developing the patch I encountered a difficulty with testcase
> > dec_structure_6.f90, which uses a DEC extension, namelist "old-style
> > CLIST initializers in STRUCTURE". I could not figure out how to
> > determine the shape of the initializer; it seemed to be always zero
This patch fixes two issues:
First, to print 'CLASS(t2)' instead of:
Error: Type mismatch in argument ‘x’ at (1); passed CLASS(__class_MAIN___T2_a)
to TYPE(t)
Additionally,
class(t2) = class(t) ! 't2' extends 't'
class(t2) = class(any)
was wrongly accepted.
OK?
Tobias
-
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 04:20:49PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> If we do implement double-double support, I think KIND=15 would be better
> than KIND=17, it is true that double-double has for certain numbers much
> higher precision than IEEE quad, but the precision depends on the numbers
> and mos
Thank you for writing this out Bill!
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 08:50:08AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Longer term, we have the question of supporting more Power targets. AIX will
> continue to
> use only double-double.
Yes. So it will be virtually no cost to continue supporting
double-double on
12 matches
Mail list logo
