On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 09:49:22PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> On 4/14/23 21:33, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > I was wondering about the difference between set_exponent()
> > and scale(), and found that set_exponent() talks about IEEE
> > values while scale() doesn't. I'm wondering i
Hi Steve,
On 4/14/23 21:33, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 08:59:24PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
the compile-time simplification of intrinsic SET_EXPONENT was
broken since the early days of gfortran for argument X < 1
(including negative X) and for I <
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 12:33:18PM -0700, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
>
>If X is an IEEE NaN, the result is the same NaN.
>
A better testcase as gfortran will quiet a NaN on assignment.
program foo
integer i
equivalence(i,y)
i = int(z'7FC0BEEF',4) ! Add payload to NaN.
print
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 08:59:24PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
>
> the compile-time simplification of intrinsic SET_EXPONENT was
> broken since the early days of gfortran for argument X < 1
> (including negative X) and for I < 0. I identified and fixed
> several issues in the implemen
Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Harald Anlauf
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:45:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fortran: fix compile-time simplification of SET_EXPONENT
[PR109511]
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/109511
* simplify.cc (gfc_simplify_set_exponent): Fix implementation of
compile-time simplifi
