fpu-glibc name is a bit incorrect, since it also works on other systems.
I have verified that it builds and can also build other packages
correctly (that were failing before).
From 0feb83fae30070cf250781449670638d7addd947 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Piotr Kubaj
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:03:13 +
On 22-03-20 16:30:08, FX wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (Please send all Fortran (front-end and libgfortran) patches in CC to the
> Fortran list.)
>
> Please hold from pushing the patch as is, I have some questions:
>
> - If FreeBSD has feenableexcept() and related functions, it should already
> use the fpu
Hi,
> the problem is that configure checks for feenableexcept() in libm:
> AC_CHECK_LIB([m],[feenableexcept],[have_feenableexcept=yes
> AC_DEFINE([HAVE_FEENABLEEXCEPT],[1],[libm includes feenableexcept])])
>
> FreeBSD doesn't have this function in libm, it's implemented in
> /usr/include/fenv.h
Hello,
can you check the following patch?
On 22-04-13 17:27:11, FX wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > the problem is that configure checks for feenableexcept() in libm:
> > AC_CHECK_LIB([m],[feenableexcept],[have_feenableexcept=yes
> > AC_DEFINE([HAVE_FEENABLEEXCEPT],[1],[libm includes feenableexcept])])
> >
Hi,
> can you check the following patch?
Why restrict it to powerpc-freebsd only, and not all freebsd? Do they differ?
Otherwise it looks ok to me, but probably should be tested on a glibc non-x86
target.
In any case, this will be for the new branch, when stage 1 reopens.
FX
On 22-04-14 09:05:17, FX wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > can you check the following patch?
>
> Why restrict it to powerpc-freebsd only, and not all freebsd? Do they differ?
amd64 and i386 on all systems use a different setting and are not affected.
For FreeBSD-supported architectures that are not amd64, i386
Given that 12 has been branched off, is it OK now to commit this patch?
On 22-04-14 16:09:35, Piotr Kubaj wrote:
> On 22-04-14 09:05:17, FX wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > can you check the following patch?
> >
> > Why restrict it to powerpc-freebsd only, and not all freebsd? Do they
> > differ?
> amd
> Given that 12 has been branched off, is it OK now to commit this patch?
How does the patch affect the results of “make check-gfortran”? How many tests
that failed or were unsupported pass?
FX
On 22-04-28 20:55:08, FX wrote:
> > Given that 12 has been branched off, is it OK now to commit this patch?
>
> How does the patch affect the results of “make check-gfortran”? How many
> tests that failed or were unsupported pass?
Actually, test results don't change at all. However, software tha
> Actually, test results don't change at all. However, software that otherwise
> fails to build with "Cannot find an intrinsic module named
> 'ieee_arithmetic'", now builds successfully.
Test results should definitely change, we’d need to see a before/after list
(same build, same revision, with
> From: Piotr Kubaj
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:03:13 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] fortran: on powerpc*-unknown-freebsd*, also use fpu-glibc
>
> It builds fine and correctly bulds packages on FreeBSD.
> It looks like "fpu-glibc" name is a bit misleading since it also works
> on FreeBSD.
>
> Signed-o
Hi,
(Please send all Fortran (front-end and libgfortran) patches in CC to the
Fortran list.)
Please hold from pushing the patch as is, I have some questions:
- If FreeBSD has feenableexcept() and related functions, it should already use
the fpu-glibc code, because of this:
if test "x${have_fe
12 matches
Mail list logo
