[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #10 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- Created attachment 52086 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52086&action=edit adjust testcase David, could you kindly test the attached patch, to see if it fixes things?
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2021-12-29 12:26 p.m., fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > David, could you kindly test the attached patch, to see if it fixes things? Added patch to my build tree.
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2021-12-29 12:26 p.m., fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 > > --- Comment #10 from Francois-Xavier Coudert > --- > Created attachment 52086 >--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52086&action=edit > adjust testcase > > David, could you kindly test the attached patch, to see if it fixes things? Tests pass with patch on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu.
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #13 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- Fixed at cb48166e52c0f159eb80a0666c4847825e294ec0
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Just XFAIL the testcase.
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2019-03-08 8:26 p.m., kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Just XFAIL the testcase. I'm going to skip test as it still fails when XFAIL'd as on arm. The test fails due to compile error.
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #3 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Sat Mar 9 16:31:46 2019 New Revision: 269527 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269527&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR fortran/89639 * gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90: Skip on hppa*-*-linux*. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 04:12:23PM +, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 > > --- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- > On 2019-03-08 8:26 p.m., kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Just XFAIL the testcase. > I'm going to skip test as it still fails when XFAIL'd as on arm. The test > fails > due to compile error. > Thanks. When I wrote the test, I tried to skip the REAL128 case with the "if (real128 >) then" ... blocks, and completely overlooked that real128 is a named constant. This means the conversion functions real(..., real128) will try ti real128 = -1, which of fails.
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2019-03-09 12:43 p.m., sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 > > --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- > On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 04:12:23PM +, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 >> >> --- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- >> On 2019-03-08 8:26 p.m., kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >>> Just XFAIL the testcase. >> I'm going to skip test as it still fails when XFAIL'd as on arm. The test >> fails >> due to compile error. >> > Thanks. When I wrote the test, I tried to skip the > REAL128 case with the "if (real128 >) then" ... > blocks, and completely overlooked that real128 is > a named constant. This means the conversion functions > real(..., real128) will try ti real128 = -1, which > of fails. Now I understand why this just fails on hppa-linux. hppa-hpux has REAL128. I probably should change skip reason to "No REAL128". Dave
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 05:50:43PM +, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote: > >> > > Thanks. When I wrote the test, I tried to skip the > > REAL128 case with the "if (real128 >) then" ... > > blocks, and completely overlooked that real128 is > > a named constant. This means the conversion functions > > real(..., real128) will try ti real128 = -1, which s/will try ti/will try to use > > of fails. > Now I understand why this just fails on hppa-linux.i > hppa-hpux has REAL128. I probably should change skip > reason to "No REAL128". > I added predefine macros for cpp. I'll someday move this testcase to ieee_9.F90, and use #if __GFC_REAL16__ to guard againt the issue. "Someday" may not be too soon.
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2019-03-10 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Is it fixed by r269527 or not?
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 --- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2019-03-10 10:15 a.m., dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > Is it fixed by r269527 or not? It's not a good fix. r269527 simply avoids the problem on hppa-linux.
[Bug fortran/89639] FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > Is it fixed by r269527 or not? > > It's not a good fix. r269527 simply avoids the problem on hppa-linux. So let move the status to NEW.
