--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-25 03:02
---
I have now committed the patch to fix secnds-1.f. If this clears it up on 4.3,
I will backport to 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 01:06
---
I have not patched secnds-1.f yet
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32057
--- Comment #14 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-20 22:33 ---
GCC version 4.3.0 20070620
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-06/msg00942.html
FAIL: gfortran.dg/secnds-1.f -O1 execution test
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32057
--- Comment #13 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-19 17:11 ---
>>The goal of the tests is not to measure some time, but to check that
>>intervals are properly ordered, i.e., t1<=dat1<=t1a and t2a<=dat2-dat1<= t2.
If that is the "goal" then could we eliminate all influence of time (mi
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 01:26
---
Lets give this some time to test on other platforms and see. If it works, we
can port to 4.2 to get rid of the irritant factor.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32057
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 00:54
---
Subject: Bug 32057
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 6 00:54:30 2007
New Revision: 125352
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125352
Log:
2007-06-05 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-04 16:11
---
*** Bug 32206 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-04 08:37 ---
*** Bug 32202 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32057
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-03 17:07 ---
*** Bug 32196 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-05-30 21:35 ---
> a and c are actually a little more accurate at the end.
> Its also interesting that this deviation between the methods
> appears to happen only near the end of the sequence.
> I have visually scanned in quite a
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-30 03:37
---
I modified the program given in comment #4 to display the exact values at the
end of the cycle along with the three methods. Method "a" and method "c" give
identical results. Method "b" has a different phase and
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-30 02:09
---
I would like to do a couple of tests here, Then I will "oversee" this patch.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-05-29 20:25 ---
Following the Steve Kargl's suggestion in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01945.html
I have done the following test:
[archimede] test/fortran> cat > sec_prec_1.f90
implicit none
integer j, k, l, m, n
i
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-05-28 19:52 ---
A partial fix can be found at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01873.html
Some discussions can be found by following the thread.
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-23 16:05 ---
>
> Can't we use sleep here?
>
No.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32057
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-05-23 15:34 ---
> I assume the dummy loop is used for delay. I don't think it is that reliable.
I think you are right about the delay, but not about the real problem: you have
the same with secnds-1.f which does not cantain the loop
17 matches
Mail list logo
