https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Bug 48852 depends on bug 48925, which changed state.
Bug 48925 Summary: Code cleanup in write_float.def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48925
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jun 23 15:58:05 2016
New Revision: 237735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237735=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-06-23 Jerry DeLisle
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-06/msg00047.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||48925
--- Comment #15 from Jerry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have decided that to do this right I need to revamp how write_float.def and
associated functions are organized. We have discussed doing this quite a while
ago, so now is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #10)
gfortran currently does this with default formatting, list directed outout:
-
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #12)
--- snip ---
There is also case C (right-flush in 2*w+3):
--- snip ---
Oh yes, Thanks Thomas. I now see you mentioned this in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
gfortran currently does this with default formatting, list directed outout:
-
( 1., 0.) ( -1.0002E-25, 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IFORT does this:
-
(1.00,0.000E+00) (-1.000E-25,0.000E+00)
(-1.000E-25,0.000E+00) (1.00,0.000E+00)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-05 06:50:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
neither 0PFw.d nor 1PEw.dEe allow it). However, AFAICS leading blanks are
still
allowed as they are part of the real
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 12:11:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
neither 0PFw.d nor 1PEw.dEe allow it). However, AFAICS leading blanks are
still
allowed as they are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-05-05 12:28:01 UTC ---
On 05/05/2011 12:04 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
---snip---
As much as I'd like to, I cannot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 12:44:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
On 05/05/2011 12:04 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
---snip---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-05 13:31:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Also, See below. Does this give the expected output?
print *, (1.0, 0.0)
end
$ ./a.out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 03:33:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
We have another PR in place that is related to this, pr31190
Thanks for the reminder.
One thought was to hide this behind an option
19 matches
Mail list logo