On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, FX Coudert wrote:
>> Don't folk run the gfortran testsuite???
> No. People don't regtest with gfortran enabled. That's a pity, since it only
> adds little time to the total build and testing time.
I believe on of the reasons people often do not build with gfortran
enabled is
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:20:51AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:31:13AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Someone broke optimization of complex arithmetic. A 2005-06-01
> > mainline gives the expected answer. A 2005-06-15 mainline is
> > broken. I'll continue my binar
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:31:13AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Someone broke optimization of complex arithmetic. A 2005-06-01
> mainline gives the expected answer. A 2005-06-15 mainline is
> broken. I'll continue my binary search. Fortunately, building
> gcc on a dual opteron system with 12 GB
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:17:22PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:37 +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
> > > There are regressions involving complex aritmetic in the testsuite too:
> > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f (test for excess errors)
> > > WARNING: gfortran.dg/real_const
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:37 +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
> > There are regressions involving complex aritmetic in the testsuite too:
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f (test for excess errors)
> > WARNING: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f compilation failed to produce
> > executable
>
> The regression
There are regressions involving complex aritmetic in the testsuite too:
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f (test for excess errors)
> WARNING: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f compilation failed to produce
> executable
The regression appeared between 20050716 and 20050717 on i686-linux and
i386-freeb
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 11:02:12PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> This is most likely the same problem as PR 22504.
>
> Could you attach your program to that PR?
>
I'm still cutting it down. I'll attach it to
the PR when its much small than it is now.
--
Steve
On Jul 18, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:31:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
Here's the output from a program that brought the problem
to my attention. It uses downward recursion to compute
spherical Bessel functions.
NAG's F95 compiler
n x jn(x
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:31:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> Here's the output from a program that brought the problem
> to my attention. It uses downward recursion to compute
> spherical Bessel functions.
>
> NAG's F95 compiler
> n x jn(x) jn(cmplx(x,0))
> 0 2.2900
This is a heads up. Someone has broken complex arithmetic
on mainline. I've just found this problem and unfortunately
it will take me some time to cut the test program down to
something managable. This could be a gfortran bug or it
may be a middle/back end bug.
Here's the output from a program
10 matches
Mail list logo
