--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 18:35
---
Fixed on 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 18:31
---
Subject: Bug 30910
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 18:30:57 2007
New Revision: 122271
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122271
Log:
2007-02-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 18:26
---
Subject: Bug 30910
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 18:26:23 2007
New Revision: 122270
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122270
Log:
2007-02-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 18:15
---
Subject: Bug 30910
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 18:15:27 2007
New Revision: 122266
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122266
Log:
2007-02-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 18:13
---
Subject: Bug 30910
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 18:13:16 2007
New Revision: 122265
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122265
Log:
2007-02-23 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 06:29
---
Subject: Bug 30910
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 06:29:03 2007
New Revision: 122251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122251
Log:
2007-02-22 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 05:43
---
Subject: Bug 30910
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 05:43:16 2007
New Revision: 122250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122250
Log:
2007-02-22 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 14:23
---
Thanks Tobias. I suspected a connection with that patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30910
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 13:59 ---
Forget to mention: If I comment out that if-block, the output is correct
(1.E-01). Now you need only to fix it without breaking the other PR ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30910
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 13:50 ---
I think I found why the output is wrong. The following condition has been
introduced 2006-08-27 with the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=116502
Before the "if" the value is 0.1, afterwards it is 0.
--- Comment #5 from pmason at ricardo dot com 2007-02-22 12:40 ---
Get same problem with equivalent P/E format:
write(6,'(1pe6.0)') 1.0e-1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30910
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 01:39
---
Correction, it was F format with .0 decimal specification, pr28354.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30910
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 01:26
---
I fixed one similar to this not too long ago with E format. I will dig that up
while I am at it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30910
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-21 14:51 ---
This is a regression. With 4.1.2 20070115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) I get
"1.E-01", but with today's 4.2 and 4.3 I get "0.E+00".
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
14 matches
Mail list logo
