On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, FX Coudert wrote:
>> Don't folk run the gfortran testsuite???
> No. People don't regtest with gfortran enabled. That's a pity, since it only
> adds little time to the total build and testing time.
I believe on of the reasons people often do not build with gfortran
enabled is
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:20:51AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:31:13AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Someone broke optimization of complex arithmetic. A 2005-06-01
> > mainline gives the expected answer. A 2005-06-15 mainline is
> > broken. I'll continue my binar
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:31:13AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Someone broke optimization of complex arithmetic. A 2005-06-01
> mainline gives the expected answer. A 2005-06-15 mainline is
> broken. I'll continue my binary search. Fortunately, building
> gcc on a dual opteron system with 12 GB
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:17:22PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:37 +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
> > > There are regressions involving complex aritmetic in the testsuite too:
> > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f (test for excess errors)
> > > WARNING: gfortran.dg/real_const
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:37 +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
> > There are regressions involving complex aritmetic in the testsuite too:
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f (test for excess errors)
> > WARNING: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f compilation failed to produce
> > executable
>
> The regression
There are regressions involving complex aritmetic in the testsuite too:
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f (test for excess errors)
> WARNING: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f compilation failed to produce
> executable
The regression appeared between 20050716 and 20050717 on i686-linux and
i386-freeb
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 11:02:12PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> This is most likely the same problem as PR 22504.
>
> Could you attach your program to that PR?
>
I'm still cutting it down. I'll attach it to
the PR when its much small than it is now.
--
Steve
On Jul 18, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:31:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
Here's the output from a program that brought the problem
to my attention. It uses downward recursion to compute
spherical Bessel functions.
NAG's F95 compiler
n x jn(x
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:31:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> Here's the output from a program that brought the problem
> to my attention. It uses downward recursion to compute
> spherical Bessel functions.
>
> NAG's F95 compiler
> n x jn(x) jn(cmplx(x,0))
> 0 2.2900
