So, after a six-year break (was it so long?), I’m back among the maintainers.
Committed as rev. 215237
FX
2014-09-13 Francois-Xavier Coudert
* MAINTAINERS: Move myself to reviewers (Fortran).
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
> And thanks for the review, FX. Do you want to undo your Fortran-maintainer →
> mere-contributor status, given that you are now again a bit more involved in
> the GCC development?
Yeah, why not. I promise I'll be careful and only review things in my comfort
zone (which isn't so large).
I'll w
On 11.09.2014 18:30, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
So it looks like the following patch would be the right thing? I'm
afraid I failed to construct a compileable Fortran testcase for scalbn.
On 11.09.2014 18:32, FX wrote:
I would think so.
Looks also good to me. Thanks for the patch, Bernd. And thanks
> So it looks like the following patch would be the right thing?
I would think so.
FX
On 09/11/2014 12:37 PM, FX wrote:
Changing the fntype[2] looks wrong to me, as it is also used for
powi(double, int) , where the argument order matches the current
version:
Ah, sorry. I only looked at mathbuiltins.def and didn't spot the other use.
It looks like fntype[5] is actually what you
Changing the fntype[2] looks wrong to me, as it is also used for powi(double,
int) , where the argument order matches the current version:
> gfc_define_builtin ("__builtin_powi", mfunc_double[2],
> BUILT_IN_POWI, "powi", ATTR_CONST_NOTHROW_LEAF_LIST);
(I don’t see any oth
