On 4/13/23 9:43 AM, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
All,
The systems that I've used while hacking on gfortran
bugs and features are starting to show their age. I'm
in the early stage of put together the wishlist for
a budget friendly replacement. While I'll likely go
with a Ryzen7 cpu, NVME M2
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 09:49:22PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> On 4/14/23 21:33, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > I was wondering about the difference between set_exponent()
> > and scale(), and found that set_exponent() talks about IEEE
> > values while scale() doesn't. I'm wondering i
Hi Steve,
On 4/14/23 21:33, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 08:59:24PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
the compile-time simplification of intrinsic SET_EXPONENT was
broken since the early days of gfortran for argument X < 1
(including negative X) and for I <
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 12:33:18PM -0700, Steve Kargl via Fortran wrote:
>
>If X is an IEEE NaN, the result is the same NaN.
>
A better testcase as gfortran will quiet a NaN on assignment.
program foo
integer i
equivalence(i,y)
i = int(z'7FC0BEEF',4) ! Add payload to NaN.
print
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 08:59:24PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
>
> the compile-time simplification of intrinsic SET_EXPONENT was
> broken since the early days of gfortran for argument X < 1
> (including negative X) and for I < 0. I identified and fixed
> several issues in the implemen
[Now with subject added...]
Dear all,
the compile-time simplification of intrinsic SET_EXPONENT was
broken since the early days of gfortran for argument X < 1
(including negative X) and for I < 0. I identified and fixed
several issues in the implementation. The testcase explores
argument space
Dear all,
the compile-time simplification of intrinsic SET_EXPONENT was
broken since the early days of gfortran for argument X < 1
(including negative X) and for I < 0. I identified and fixed
several issues in the implementation. The testcase explores
argument space comparing compile-time and ru
Hi Paul,
On 4/14/23 10:18, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Harald,
The fix was trivial. An updated patch and testcase are attached.
great, this works, and I couldn't break it again this time ...
Looks good!
Thanks,
Harald
Thanks
Paul
Fortran: Fix some deferred character pro
If you wan raw horsepower on a "working man's" wage, get one of these.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/383809689955?hash=item595cd71963:g:6NAAAOSwg4JhCKuJ&amdata=enc%3AAQAIwOngs27VAqvfureMtmK3O3TxUN8Opb7KbjeXhpl96DaDi%2BpSMCspc40m34f7wzlxF%2BX45dfQ8gIXlzjf6fMo7fQ%2Bd%2FLFVgwFRORxnAcRFKjjheHahPafOROU
Hi Harald,
Committed with the coding error that you spotted put right.
commit r13-7181-gb0e85485fbf042abccee5c0a9eb499da386c8db3
I will build up a composite finalization patch for 12-branch in the coming
days. However, I still have one of Andrew Benson's bugs to put right before
I do that.
Rega
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:40 AM Richard Biener via Fortran
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 6:43 PM Steve Kargl via Fortran
> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The systems that I've used while hacking on gfortran
> > bugs and features are starting to show their age. I'm
> > in the early stage of put
Hi Harald,
The fix was trivial. An updated patch and testcase are attached.
Thanks
Paul
Fortran: Fix some deferred character problems in associate [PR109451]
2023-04-14 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/109451
* trans-array.cc (gfc_conv_expr_descriptor): Guard expression
character length
12 matches
Mail list logo
