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 th
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
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
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
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
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
