--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-20 09:37 ---
Vaguely related is:
trans-intrinsic.c's gfc_conv_intrinsic_minmaxval, which contains currently:
/* Most negative(-HUGE) for maxval, most positive (-HUGE) for minval. */
if (op == GT_EXPR)
tmp = fold_build1
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-20 12:46 ---
Non-library part of this fix.
This fixes the reported bug, but libgfortran/m4/* should be fixed as well.
m4/iparm.m4 contains:
define(atype_max, atype_name`_HUGE')dnl
define(atype_min, `-'atype_max)dnl
One would nee
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 07:56
---
I don't think it's a bug, since "the negative number with the largest magnitude
possible within the representation" is not -huge()-1, but -huge().
If I understand the standard correctly, -huge()-1, although bein
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 08:47 ---
> For what it's worth, the Intel and Sun compilers have the behaviour you
> expect, but the Portland compiler and g95 both have the same behaviour as
> gfortran.
NAG f95 and pathscale 2.4 have: -128.
> If I underst
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2007-01-22 20:16 ---
Subject: Re: MAXVAL() incorrect for zero-size int arrays, and for -HUGE-1
maximum values.
>
>- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 07:56 ---
> I don't think it's a bu
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-27 13:24 ---
Here's a patch for the m4 part:
Index: m4/iparm.m4
===
--- m4/iparm.m4 (revision 121230)
+++ m4/iparm.m4 (working copy)
@@ -28,6 +28,6 @@ define_type(r
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 22:39 ---
Should we commit the combined fix? I do think this
is a bug.
Thomas
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30512
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-29 08:40 ---
> Should we commit the combined fix? I do think this
> is a bug.
So do I, but we also need a test case, I think.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30512
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-30 17:58 ---
Let's then fix this bug.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assi
--- Comment #10 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-02-01 09:00 ---
Subject: Bug number PR30512
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00023.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-09 21:56 ---
Subject: Bug 30512
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Feb 9 21:56:06 2007
New Revision: 121777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121777
Log:
fortran/
2007-02-09 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11 matches
Mail list logo
