Jerry,
> My goal is to completely not use any floating point operations for that
> section of code. We have a concept on how to do it. I am still working
> out tweaks to 48787, then I will turn my attention to this. Feel free to
> quiet that test case any way you wish in the meantime.
ok, I've
On May 3, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Tobias Burnus
wrote:
> PS: Especially as you are listed as testsuite maintainer, I would be
> happy if you could comment on the testsuite patch at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-04/msg00331.html
Ok.
On 05/03/2011 03:14 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Rainer,
Rainer Orth wrote:
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
This is OK. We are working on a solution, so maybe it would be better to
XFAIL it so that when it does get fixed it will be flagged. It also fails
on i686-pc-gnu.
is this a solution for this particu
Rainer,
Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > This is OK. We are working on a solution, so maybe it would be better to
> > XFAIL it so that when it does get fixed it will be flagged. It also fails
> > on i686-pc-gnu.
>
> is this a solution for this particular case or for the general need
Jerry,
>> The failure vanishes with -ffloat-store, so I propose the following
>> patch, tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11 with the appropriate runtest
>> invocation.
>>
>> Ok for mainline?
>
> This is OK. We are working on a solution, so maybe it would be better to
> XFAIL it so that when it does get
On 05/02/2011 07:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
gfortran.dg/fmt_g0_6.f08 execution seems to fail on all 32-bit x86
targets at -O1 and above. Running it under gdb, I find
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
[Switching to Thread 1 (LWP 1)]
0xfed0ff85 in _lwp_kill () from /lib/libc.so.1
(gdb) whe
