On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 09:29:50PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 8:05 PM Steve Kargl <
> s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > I've added the following patch to a recently committed testcase.
> >
> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 (revision 267413)
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 (working copy)
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -! { dg-do run }
> > +! { dg-do run { xfail arm*-*-gnueabi arm*-*-gnueabihf } }
> > program foo
> > use ieee_arithmetic
> > use iso_fortran_env
> >
>
> The problem seems to be that GFortran says the real128 kind value is > 0
> (i.e. that the target supports quad precision floating point (with software
> emulation, presumably)), but then trying to use it fails.
>
> Would be nice if somebody who cares about arm-none-linux-gnueabihf could
> help figure out the proper resolution instead of papering over it with
> XFAIL.
>
> But I guess XFAIL is good enough until said somebody turns up.
>
Thanks for chasing down the details. I have no access to arm*-*-*.
It's a shame the real128 is defined, and arm*-*-* doesn't
actually use it. I certainly have no time or interest in
fix this.
--
Steve
