https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99355
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> r11-7501 changed the output of the test in comment O, is this expected?
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
> % gfc pr57871.f90
I am slightly confused. Do you mean the output for this PR's comment 0 has
changed – or the result for the testcase in PR 57871 comment 0?
> % ./a.out
> kind(1.0_p1) 4 precision(1.0_p1) 6
> kind(1.0_dp) 8 precision(1.0_dp) 15
Using PR 57871 comment 0, I get exactly the same output as you have with both
gfortran and ifort.
* * *
> So without option kind(1.0_p1) is 4, should not it be converted to 16 with
> -freal-4-real-16?
Currently, the code handles:
1.0 = default-kind real
1.0d0 = default-double-precision-kind real
→ promote
And
real :: A → default-kind real
double precision :: B → default-double-precision real
real*<kind> :: C → convert <kind>
real(kind=<kind> :: D → convert <kind>
The question is what to do about:
1.0_<kind>
* * *
However, we cannot completely avoid ambiguity as for
-freal-4-real-8 freal-8-real-16
integer, parameter :: k1 = kind(1.0) → 8
real(kind=k1) :: var → kind(8) → 16
real(kind=4) :: var → kind(4) → 8
But some issues are unavoidable and all -freal-*-real-* flags should be
avoided, if possible.
* * *
Seems as if we need to handle in match_real_constant the case default-real-kind
separately from _kind value specified.
Untested:
--- a/gcc/fortran/primary.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/primary.c
@@ -666,6 +666,25 @@ done:
if (kind == -1)
goto cleanup;
+ if (kind == 4)
+ {
+ if (flag_real4_kind == 8)
+ kind = 8;
+ if (flag_real4_kind == 10)
+ kind = 10;
+ if (flag_real4_kind == 16)
+ kind = 16;
+ }
+ else if (kind == 8)
+ {
+ if (flag_real8_kind == 4)
+ kind = 4;
+ if (flag_real8_kind == 10)
+ kind = 10;
+ if (flag_real8_kind == 16)
+ kind = 16;
+ }
+
switch (exp_char)
{
case 'd':
