powerpc-apple-darwin: round_4.f90 test with IBM long double

2024-07-01 Thread Sergey Fedorov
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*-

Re: powerpc-apple-darwin: round_4.f90 test with IBM long double

2024-07-01 Thread FX Coudert
Hi, > Furthermore, the test is supposed to use IEEE arithmetic module No, the test does not use the IEEE arithmetic module. FX

Problem with GCC 13.3.0 / mpich 4.1

2024-07-01 Thread Salvatore Filippone
Dear All I have encountered a strange issue that seems to be caused by some weird interaction between gcc 13.3.0 and MPI (mpich/4.1.0). With mpich/4.1 and gcc-13.3 the attached code runs with the results $ ./tsm hwloc/linux: Ignoring PCI device with non-16bit domain. Pass --enable-32bits-pci-doma

Re: Problem with GCC 13.3.0 / mpich 4.1

2024-07-01 Thread Salvatore Filippone
Ooops, looks like the attachment was not well received by the mailer. tsm.F90 -- module const_mod integer, parameter :: psb_mpk_ = selected_int_kind(8) type :: psb_ctxt_type integer(psb_mpk_), allocatable :: ctxt end type psb_ctxt_type end

Re: powerpc-apple-darwin: round_4.f90 test with IBM long double

2024-07-01 Thread Sergey Fedorov
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

Re: Problem with GCC 13.3.0 / mpich 4.1

2024-07-01 Thread Salvatore Filippone
Sorry for the noise, when compiled with OpenMPI/4.1.4 the problem does not appear. So, it looks like it's an MPICH bug rather than a GCC one. On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 4:14 PM Salvatore Filippone < filippone.salvat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ooops, looks like the attachment was not well received by the

[Patch, fortran] PR102689 - Segfault with RESHAPE of CLASS as actual argument

2024-07-01 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Hi All, This is one of those PRs where one thing led to another I think that the patch is pretty complete and, while apparently quite heavy, is more or less self explanatory through comments and the ChangeLog. The first testcase concentrates on reshape in various guises, while the second deal