Re: [PATCH] Fortran: add IEEE_QUIET_* and IEEE_SIGNALING_* comparisons
Hi Harald, > I just looked at that thread. I guess if you answer Mikael's > questions at > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/601744.html > the patch will be fine. Amended patch, adding the required testing of signalling vs. quiet behaviour. I still need to get an OK on the middle-end part first, but I consider the Fortran part approved. Thanks, FX 0001-Add-__builtin_iseqsig.patch Description: Binary data 0002-Fortran-add-IEEE_QUIET_-and-IEEE_SIGNALING_-comparis.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [PATCH] Fortran: add Fortran 2018 IEEE_{MIN,MAX} functions
Hi Thomas, > The KIND=17 is a bit of a kludge. It is not visible for > user programs, they use KIND=16, but this is then translated > to library calls as if it was KIND=17 if the IEEE 128-bit floats > are selected Can you check what the IEEE test results are when -mabi=ieeelongdouble is enabled? It’s not even clear to me what the IEEE kinds selected should be, in this case, depending on -mabi=ieeelongdouble > Regarding FX's patch: I am not quite sure that I am > actually testing the right thing if running the testsuite > there, so POWER should not hold up this patch. If it turns > out that POWER needs additonal work on IEEE, we can always > add that later. Actually, it sounds like the situation is: the same target can have two ABIs based on a compile-time flag. That sounds like a job for multilib, i.e., we should compile libgfortran twice, one for each ABI. I am sure this was considered and rejected, do you remember what was the rationale? Thanks, FX
Re: [PATCH] Fortran: add Fortran 2018 IEEE_{MIN,MAX} functions
Given the agreement that the patch is not making things for powerpc worse, and the review by Steve, I have committed as https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=17bccd1d2c0fa1f08e0483c8ed841994a95febb0 Best, FX
Fortran 2008 DATA statement restrictions
Hi, I was looking at our table for Fortran 2008 conformance (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Fortran2008Status) and we really have only a few items missing. One in particular is: "Data statement restrictions lifted”. Quoting the document: > Subscripts and nested implied-do limits in a data statement can be any > constant expression instead of being limited to combinations of constants, > implied-do variables, and intrinsic operations. Unless I misunderstand this quote, I think we have that already. Maybe we always had that? I have run the attached test program, which uses non-trivial constant expressions, and it passes fine. So I plan to add that to our testsuite, and change the wiki. But I would like someone else to confirm: do you understand this the same way I do? Do you have ideas of other ways to test it, tricky expressions, etc? Are there other ways that "Subscripts and nested implied-do limits” may appear in a DATA statement? Thanks, FX data.f90 Description: Binary data
Re: Fortran 2008 DATA statement restrictions
Hi FX! Am 10.06.23 um 18:22 schrieb FX Coudert: Hi, I was looking at our table for Fortran 2008 conformance (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Fortran2008Status) and we really have only a few items missing. One in particular is: "Data statement restrictions lifted”. Quoting the document: Subscripts and nested implied-do limits in a data statement can be any constant expression instead of being limited to combinations of constants, implied-do variables, and intrinsic operations. Unless I misunderstand this quote, I think we have that already. Maybe we always had that? I have run the attached test program, which uses non-trivial constant expressions, and it passes fine. So I plan to add that to our testsuite, and change the wiki. But I would like someone else to confirm: do you understand this the same way I do? Do you have ideas of other ways to test it, tricky expressions, etc? Are there other ways that "Subscripts and nested implied-do limits” may appear in a DATA statement? There is a meta-bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056 and in particular one PR about vector subscripts: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49588 This one gives an ICE: f951: internal compiler error: TODO: Vector sections in data statements Thanks, FX
libgfortran: remove support for --enable-intermodule
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109373 I don’t believe it is widely used, and it was removed from everywhere else in gcc. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK to commit? FX 0001-libgfortran-remove-support-for-enable-intermodule.patch Description: Binary data
