https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Sep 26 20:28:00 2017
New Revision: 253214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-26 Janus Weil
PR fortran/82143
PR f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
All the failures will hopefully be fixed by the patch at ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-09/msg00111.html
... which I plan to commit soon (feedback welcome).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #21)
> The promotion_4.f90 test fails due to bad assumptions:
>
> (gdb) whatis d
> type = real(kind=10)
This can be fixed by:
Index: promotion_4.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #21 from Andreas Schwab ---
The promotion_4.f90 test fails due to bad assumptions:
(gdb) whatis d
type = real(kind=10)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab ---
On m68k there is a compilation failure for promotion_3.f90:
f951: Fatal Error: REAL(KIND=16) is not available for '-fdefault-real-16'
option
The promotion_4.f90 test fails during exection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Sep 23 13:15:20 2017
New Revision: 253117
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253117&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-23 Janus Weil
PR fortran/82143
* la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 12:19:50PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
>
> --- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > For future reference: -fd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 02:33:02PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > I don't have access to ifort, so I have no idea what "-real-size 128"
> > does. A google search does not find this.
>
> Maybe y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> For future reference: -fdefault-real-8 was added by Steve in r97221.
This is not the actual implementation, but the renaming of -i8, -r8, ... to
-fdefault-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For future reference: -fdefault-real-8 was added by Steve in r97221.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> Please don't add a new -fdefault-* option. All of the current
> -fdefault-* options should be deprecated in favor of the -freal-*,
> -finteger-*, etc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> I don't know what fort is doing, but what is wrong with -freal-4-real-16?
It is simply not equivalent to ifort's -real-size 128 / -r16, in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:39:12PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Please don't. I currently don't have much time to look into this issue, but I
> plan to do so in the future.
>
> And to repeat it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> And to repeat it: Yes, I think there is an issue here to be fixed.
> Essentially what I'm looking for is an equivalent to ifort's "-real-size 128"
> option. I don't think that exists at the moment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from janus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Could we close this PR as WONTFIX?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 04:09:24PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
>
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > -fdefault-real-8 promotes s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> -fdefault-real-8 promotes some things that are REAL(4)
> to REAL(8), and if available it promotes some things from REAL(8) to
> REAL(16).
Not exactly: -fdefault-real-8 promotes some things that are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 12:31:12PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
>
> --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> Actaully, the -fdefault-real* and -fdefault-integer-* options
> should be deprecated. These options are broken by design,
I don't know what that means. And no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82143
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
26 matches
Mail list logo
