Re: [power-ieee128] What should the math functions be annotated with?

2021-12-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Fortran
On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 08:29:53AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > On 01.12.21 21:54, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote: > > > Inside of libgfortran, I think it should depend on some macro defined > > in libgfortran.h. > > #if defined(__powerpc64__) && __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ \ >

Re: [power-ieee128] What should the math functions be annotated with?

2021-12-03 Thread Thomas Koenig via Fortran
On 03.12.21 10:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 08:29:53AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: On 01.12.21 21:54, Jakub Jelinek via Fortran wrote: Inside of libgfortran, I think it should depend on some macro defined in libgfortran.h. #if defined(__powerpc64__) && __BYTE_ORDER__ ==

Re: [power-ieee128] What should the math functions be annotated with?

2021-12-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Fortran
On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 12:16:56PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > It is part of upstream glibc 2.32 (released Aug 2020) and later, see > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=051be01f6b41a1466b07ae4bd7f5894a8ec5fe67 > > distrowatch says that glibc 2.32 and later is in Ubuntu 21.04 a

Re: [power-ieee128] What should the math functions be annotated with?

2021-12-03 Thread Thomas Koenig via Fortran
Hi Jakub, Note, we want to test both building gcc on ppc64le with older glibc and newer glibc (and that libgfortran will have the same ABI between both and one can move gcc including libgfortran and libquadmath from the older glibc setup to newer and make -mabi=ieeelongdouble work in Fortran t

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/103505 - ICE in compare_bound_mpz_t, at fortran/resolve.c:4587

2021-12-03 Thread Mikael Morin
On 02/12/2021 22:48, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: Dear Fortranners, specifying invalid constant array declarations (e.g. real array bounds) could lead to an ICE because the array specs were checked for consistency. A possible solution is to try an early simplification before doing that check

Re: [patch] Fortran/OpenMP: Support most of 5.1 atomic extensions

2021-12-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Fortran
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:29:31PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: > --- a/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c > +++ b/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c > @@ -1926,6 +1930,22 @@ show_omp_clauses (gfc_omp_clauses *omp_clauses) >fputc (' ', dumpfile); >fputs (memorder, dumpfile); > } > + if (

Re: [power-ieee128] What should the math functions be annotated with?

2021-12-03 Thread Bill Schmidt via Fortran
Hi! On 12/3/21 5:56 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Hi Jakub, > >> Note, we want to test both building gcc on ppc64le with older glibc >> and newer glibc (and that libgfortran will have the same ABI between both >> and one can move gcc including libgfortran and libquadmath from the older >> glibc set

Re: [PATCH, v2, OpenMP 5.0] Remove array section base-pointer mapping semantics, and other front-end adjustments (mainline trunk)

2021-12-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Fortran
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 09:54:12PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote: > 2021-11-19 Chung-Lin Tang > > gcc/c/ChangeLog: > > * c-parser.c (struct omp_dim): New struct type for use inside > c_parser_omp_variable_list. > (c_parser_omp_variable_list): Allow multiple levels of array and

Re: [power-ieee128] What should the math functions be annotated with?

2021-12-03 Thread Michael Meissner via Fortran
On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 08:57:54AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi! > > On 12/3/21 5:56 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > > > Hi Jakub, > > > >> Note, we want to test both building gcc on ppc64le with older glibc > >> and newer glibc (and that libgfortran will have the same ABI between both > >> and on