http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #63 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
On i386-pc-solaris2.9, I get the same PASSes and XFAILs as before:
Unsupported rounding for real(16)
380 0 52
PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 -Os execution tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #62 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 29-Mar-14, at 7:30 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #61 from Dominique d'Humieres ens.fr> ---
>> Test no longer fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #61 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Test no longer fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11:
>
> Unsupported rounding for real(4)
> Unsupported rounding for real(8)
> Unsupported rounding for real(16)
>0 0 0
> PAS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #60 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 29-Mar-14, at 12:12 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Could you test the attached patch?
Test no longer fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11:
Unsupported rounding for real(4)
Unsupported rou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #59 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 32485
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32485&action=edit
Patch for gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90
Could you test the attached patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #58 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 27-Mar-14, at 6:31 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #56 from Dominique d'Humieres ens.fr> ---
>> So, probably abort sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #57 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Your results on Darwin match gfortran and ifort on x86-64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #56 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So, probably abort shouldn't be called when rounding isn't supported.
The problem is that the rounding to even on tie seems supported by hpux, but
for
98765.0_16 or -98765.0_16: 6 successes out of 8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #55 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/27/2014 11:00 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Could you test the following code?
Here is output:
Unsupported rounding for real(4)
Unsupported rounding for real(8)
(en15.2) 98.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #54 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #53 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dave, Rainer,
>
> Could you test the following code?
Sure: passes on both i386-pc-solaris2.{9,10} with XFAILs on Solaris 9.
> ! { dg-f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #53 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Dave, Rainer,
Could you test the following code?
[karma] f90/bug% cat fmt_en_1.f90
! { dg-do run }
! PR60128 Invalid outputs with EN descriptors
! Test case provided by Walt Brainerd.
program pr6012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #52 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 4:20 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #51 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> This is what the HP-UX Floating-Po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #51 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This is what the HP-UX Floating-Point Guide says:
>
> If two representable values are equally close to
> the true value, choose the one whose least significant
> bit is 0.
This is round to even on t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #50 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 3:43 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> It looks like hppa rounds toward zero on tie.
This is what the HP-UX Floating-Point Guide says:
If two representable values are equall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #49 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 2:07 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #48 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>>> AFAICT on hppa*-*-hpux11* the E f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #48 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > AFAICT on hppa*-*-hpux11* the E format does not round to nearest for tie.
> > What
> > is the output of the following test
> >
> > ...
> >
> > ? On x86_64-apple-darwin13, I get '1.0e+04 9.8e+03'.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #47 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 12:34 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> AFAICT on hppa*-*-hpux11* the E format does not round to nearest for tie. What
> is the output of the following test
>
> #include "stdio.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #46 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT on hppa*-*-hpux11* the E format does not round to nearest for tie. What
is the output of the following test
#include "stdio.h"
int main() {
printf("%.1e %.1e\n", 9950.0, 9750.0);
return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #45 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 11:09 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> What is the output of
>
>use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
>print *, REAL_KINDS
> end
>
> ?
4 8 16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #44 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
What is the output of
use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
print *, REAL_KINDS
end
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #43 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 8:51 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Can you uncomment the line
>
> !print *, n_tst, n_cnt
>
> and post the corresponding output?
(en15.2) -98.77E+03 expected:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #42 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > After r208780 (for 4.9, not backported yet to 4.8)?
>
> Yes, it still fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Maybe list is shorter:
>
> Unsupported rounding for real(16)
> ...
So the line
! { dg-final
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #41 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Mar-14, at 11:14 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> After r208780 (for 4.9, not backported yet to 4.8)?
Yes, it still fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Maybe list is shorter:
Unsuppor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #40 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Mar-14, at 11:14 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres ens.fr> ---
>> gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 tests fail on hppa*-*-hpux11* (4.8 and 4.9):
> ...
After r208780 (for 4.9, not backported yet to 4.8)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #38 from John David Anglin ---
gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 tests fail on hppa*-*-hpux11* (4.8 and 4.9):
(en15.0) 9.E+03 expected: 10.E+03
(en15.0) 9.E+03 expected: 10.E+03
(en15.1) 9.9E
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Mar 24 00:29:43 2014
New Revision: 208780
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-23 Dominique d'Humieres
PR libfortran/60128
* gfort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #36 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Looks Good! I will commit the change in Comment #34 soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
>> files. Seeing the Unsupported rounding entries on Solaris 11 (a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
> files. Seeing the Unsupported rounding entries on Solaris 11 (any
> platform without the rounding issue actually) seemed strange
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.
>
> ???
I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.
???
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is the following patch better?
It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Is the following patch better?
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f902014-03-08
10:02:08.0 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f902014-03-20 16:34:03.0 +0100
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> > What we should do is break the test case into two test cases one for
>> > quad16 and
>> > the other for the rest. Then we XFAIL the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #21)
>> > We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.
>>
>> What I don't see i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Rainer,
>
> can you test the following patch?
>
> --- _clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f902014-03-04
> 17:51:04.0 +01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #21)
> > We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.
>
> What I don't see is how to xfail only some tests for real(16). Anyway,
> Rainer could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Rainer,
can you test the following patch?
--- _clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f902014-03-04
17:51:04.0 +0100
+++ work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f902014-03-18 18:08:22.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I'm not sure that's the problem: AFAICS snprintf is only used by
> io/write_float.def (output_float:734) to print the exponent, the rest is
> handled by quadmath_snprintf.
The failing tests assume r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> > write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_16
>> > end
>>
>> 9.4E+00
>
> So the test fails due to a bug in the rounding of real(16) in yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.
What I don't see is how to xfail only some tests for real(16). Anyway, Rainer
could open a new PR for the solaris issue and close this on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_16
> > end
>
> 9.4E+00
So the test fails due to a bug in the rounding of real(16) in your lib. Do you
have any idea about how the tests for real(16) can be s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Could your repeat the test for
>
> write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_8
> end
9.5E+00
> write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_10
> end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Could your repeat the test for
write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_8
end
write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_10
end
and
write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_16
end
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What is the output of
>
> write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905
> end
>
> ? If it is 9.4, it means that your snprintf is not rounding to neares
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
What is the output of
write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905
end
? If it is 9.4, it means that your snprintf is not rounding to nearest but to
zero.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 16 00:35:19 2014
New Revision: 208604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Dominique d'Humieres
Backport from mainline
PR l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 16 00:18:21 2014
New Revision: 208603
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15 Dominique d'Humieres
Backport from mainline
PR l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 8 06:04:34 2014
New Revision: 208423
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-08 Dominique d'Humieres
PR libgfortran/60128
* io/w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have reviewed and tested the patch from comment #7 on x86-64 with -m32 and
-m64 and I think its ready. Dominique mentioned to possibly add a volatile. I
have not tested on the other platforms.
I can commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The following patch fixes the issues reported in comment 6
--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/write_float.def2014-01-21 08:30:57.0
+0100
+++ libgfortran/io/write_float.def2014-02-18 09:59:04.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
While preparing a test case, I have been hit by another snag!-(
With the trunk and 4.8, the following test
write(*,"(en15.2)") 98765.
write(*,"(en15.3)") 9876.5
write(*,"(en15.1)") 987.65
write(*,"(en1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
While the patch in comment 4 fixed they PR, it was quite hawkish and did not
explained the problem. After a deeper analysis it turns out that it is yet
another "off by one bug" fixed by the following on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The regression reported in comment 3 disappears with the following patch
--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/write_float.def2014-01-21 08:30:57.0
+0100
+++ libgfortran/io/write_float.def2014-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the patch in comment 2, the test gfortran.dg/edit_real_1.f90 fails for the
outputs #5, 6, and 13
5 12.873E+03z
6 12.344E-06z
13999.999E+00z
instead of the expected outp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
63 matches
Mail list logo
