On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Janus Weil wrote:
> 2017-09-25 23:23 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl :
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>>> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn :
>>> > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC
>>> > and AArch64.
Hi Rainer,
>> Attached is a more complete patch, which should fix all problems that
>> were reported concerning these two test cases. Would be great if
>> someone could confirm that it works on a failing target (I currently
>> only have access to x86_64-linux-gnu machines).
>
> I've just checked s
Hi Janus,
> Attached is a more complete patch, which should fix all problems that
> were reported concerning these two test cases. Would be great if
> someone could confirm that it works on a failing target (I currently
> only have access to x86_64-linux-gnu machines).
I've just checked sparc-sun
2017-09-26 10:44 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil :
> 2017-09-25 23:23 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl :
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>>> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn :
>>> > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC
>>> > and AArch64. Are these n
2017-09-25 23:23 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl :
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn :
>> > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC
>> > and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double
>>
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn :
> > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC
> > and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double
> > assumptions?
>
> These tests require the av
2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn :
> promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC
> and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double
> assumptions?
These tests require the availability of a 10- or 16-byte-wide REAL
type, respectively. I have to
promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC
and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double
assumptions?
f951: Fatal Error: REAL(KIND=16) is not available for '-fdefault-real-16' option
compilation terminated.
f951: Fatal Error: REAL(KIND=10) is not av
2017-09-22 21:32 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil :
> 2017-09-22 11:44 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil :
>> 2017-09-22 9:11 GMT+02:00 Janne Blomqvist :
>>> And since the standard requires that double precision variables are
>>> twice as big as reals, in the absence of an explicit -fdefault-double=
>>> flag, would it make
2017-09-22 11:44 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil :
> 2017-09-22 9:11 GMT+02:00 Janne Blomqvist :
>> And since the standard requires that double precision variables are
>> twice as big as reals, in the absence of an explicit -fdefault-double=
>> flag, would it make sense to have -fdefault-real=N imply
>> -fdef
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:11:55AM +0300, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Janus Weil wrote:
> > Thanks, Steve. I'm attaching the updated ChangeLog and the two test
> > cases for the two new flags. Since this appears to be a somewhat
> > controversial feature, I'll wait t
2017-09-22 9:11 GMT+02:00 Janne Blomqvist :
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Janus Weil wrote:
>> Thanks, Steve. I'm attaching the updated ChangeLog and the two test
>> cases for the two new flags. Since this appears to be a somewhat
>> controversial feature, I'll wait two more days to allow fo
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Janus Weil wrote:
> Thanks, Steve. I'm attaching the updated ChangeLog and the two test
> cases for the two new flags. Since this appears to be a somewhat
> controversial feature, I'll wait two more days to allow for others to
> contribute their feedback (positive
2017-09-21 22:38 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl :
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:10:42AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>> Attached is an updated patch, where I'm adding -fdefault-real-10
>> according to Steve's suggestion. As with -fdefault-real-8 and
>> -fdefault-real-16, I'm choosing to set the double kind to 16
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:10:42AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
> Attached is an updated patch, where I'm adding -fdefault-real-10
> according to Steve's suggestion. As with -fdefault-real-8 and
> -fdefault-real-16, I'm choosing to set the double kind to 16 in this
> case. Also I'm renaming flag_defaul
Attached is an updated patch, where I'm adding -fdefault-real-10
according to Steve's suggestion. As with -fdefault-real-8 and
-fdefault-real-16, I'm choosing to set the double kind to 16 in this
case. Also I'm renaming flag_default_real to flag_default_real_8 (for
symmetry reasons and to make the
2017-09-18 11:31 GMT+02:00 Dominique d'Humières :
> (1) real(16) is an order of magnitude slower than real(8) for the codes I
> have tested (a long time ago). So its real utility is quite low.
I am fully aware that performance with quad-precision is lower than
with double precision. How much will
2017-09-18 16:08 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl :
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:02:22AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> >> attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler
>> >> flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran.
>> >
>> > What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:02:22AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> >> attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler
> >> flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran.
> >
> > What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to add bloat to the
> > compiler, then you might a
As said in bugzilla
(1) real(16) is an order of magnitude slower than real(8) for the codes I have
tested (a long time ago). So its real utility is quite low.
(2) I think your time would be better used by dealing with your assigned PRs.
But now the wasted time is done, I don’t have further obje
Hi Steve,
>> attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler
>> flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran.
>
> What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to add bloat to the
> compiler, then you might as well to it right.
well, yeah. If my only aim was to add bloat to the co
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:42:01PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>
> attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler
> flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran.
What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to add bloat to the
compiler, then you might as well to it right.
--
Stev
Hi all,
attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler
flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran.
I know that there is some opposition against this, but I am proposing
it anyway, because I do think it is useful after all. My reasoning is
as follows:
1) Despite tons of -freal-X
23 matches
Mail list logo
