On Sat, 12 Apr 2014, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > This test, after the update on 4.8 in r209070 when the test-case was
> > modified substantially (not really covered by the ChangeLog entry) to be
> > identical to that on trunk, apparently takes a different route in the
> > fortran run-time libra
> This test, after the update on 4.8 in r209070 when the test-case was
> modified substantially (not really covered by the ChangeLog entry) to be
> identical to that on trunk, apparently takes a different route in the
> fortran run-time library on 4.8 compared to trunk. For 4.8, it requires
> more
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Updated gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 to skip some tests not
> supported on i?86-*-solaris2.9* and hppa*-*-hpux* (these tests
> assume rounding to nearest and to even on tie, AFAICT
> i?86-*-solaris2.9* rounds real(16) to zero and hppa*-*-hpux*
> rounds
Updated gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 to skip some tests not supported on
i?86-*-solaris2.9* and hppa*-*-hpux* (these tests assume rounding to nearest
and to even on tie, AFAICT i?86-*-solaris2.9* rounds real(16) to zero and
hppa*-*-hpux* rounds all kinds to zero on tie, with some exceptions I don’t
On 03/07/2014 02:05 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> Patch for pr60128. It is basically the patch posted at =
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60128#c7. I have made tmp =
> volatile (although I did not see any differences between -m32 and -m64) =
> and added a commen
Hi all!
Patch for pr60128. It is basically the patch posted at =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60128#c7. I have made tmp =
volatile (although I did not see any differences between -m32 and -m64) =
and added a comment (please feel free to improve the wording). I have =
also fixed
