On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:17:22PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:37 +0200, FX Coudert wrote: > > > There are regressions involving complex aritmetic in the testsuite too: > > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f (test for excess errors) > > > WARNING: gfortran.dg/real_const_1.f compilation failed to produce > > > executable > > > > The regression appeared between 20050716 and 20050717 on i686-linux and > > i386-freebsd. >
This failure may be different than the problem I'm seeing. > > > Don't folk run the gfortran testsuite??? > > > > No. People don't regtest with gfortran enabled. That's a pity, since > > it only adds little time to the total build and testing time. > I do. > > I noticed this on all my trees around that time, and since their has > been churn in libgfortran, i assumed it was someone doing something they > hadn't quite finished yet :) The 3rd and 4th columns should be the same. troutmask:sgk[207] gfc -o z zy.f90 troutmask:sgk[208] ./z 0 2.2900E+01 -3.4445E-02 -3.4445E-02 0.0000E+00 1 2.2900E+01 2.5337E-02 2.5337E-02 0.0000E+00 2 2.2900E+01 3.7765E-02 3.7765E-02 0.0000E+00 3 2.2900E+01 -1.7091E-02 -1.7091E-02 0.0000E+00 4 2.2900E+01 -4.2989E-02 -4.2989E-02 0.0000E+00 troutmask:sgk[209] gfc -o z -O zy.f90 troutmask:sgk[211] ./z 0 2.2900E+01 -3.4445E-02 -3.4445E-02 0.0000E+00 1 2.2900E+01 2.5337E-02 3.9638E-02 0.0000E+00 2 2.2900E+01 3.7765E-02 -5.0710E-02 0.0000E+00 3 2.2900E+01 -1.7091E-02 7.3035E-02 0.0000E+00 4 2.2900E+01 -4.2989E-02 -1.2032E-01 0.0000E+00 troutmask:sgk[213] gfc --version GNU Fortran 95 (GCC 4.1.0 20050712 (experimental)) Someone broke optimization of complex arithmetic. A 2005-06-01 mainline gives the expected answer. A 2005-06-15 mainline is broken. I'll continue my binary search. Fortunately, building gcc on a dual opteron system with 12 GB of memory goes fairly quick. -- Steve
