; Is there any reason to not only send the email to fortran@ _and_
>> gcc-patches@ but sending it to 13 Fortran maintainers explicitly?
>(Now
>> removed)
>
>Sorry about that. With PowerPC backend changes, I generally do
>explicitly add
>the maintainers so things don&
but sending it to 13 Fortran maintainers explicitly? (Now
> removed)
Sorry about that. With PowerPC backend changes, I generally do explicitly add
the maintainers so things don't get lost.
> >>Fix Fortran rounding issues, PR fortran/96983.
> >>
> >>Can I check
issues, PR fortran/96983.
Can I check this change into the GCC trunk?
The patch looks fine technically and is definitely an improvement since the
intermediate conversion looks odd. But it might be that the standard
requires such dance though the preceeding cases handled don't seem to
care.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:40 PM Michael Meissner via Fortran
wrote:
>
> Fix Fortran rounding issues, PR fortran/96983.
>
> I was looking at Fortran PR 96983, which fails on the PowerPC when trying to
> run the test PR96711.F90. The compiler ICEs because the PowerPC does not ha
Fix Fortran rounding issues, PR fortran/96983.
I was looking at Fortran PR 96983, which fails on the PowerPC when trying to
run the test PR96711.F90. The compiler ICEs because the PowerPC does not have
a floating point type with a type precision of 128. The reason is that the
PowerPC has 3
