[Bug fortran/43040] Wrong decl for mathbuiltins -> wrong code with LTO

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-09 10:20 
---
Checked that it is not an issue.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43040

[Bug fortran/43040] Wrong decl for mathbuiltins -> wrong code with LTO

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-09 10:18 
---
Subject: Bug 43040

Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Jun  9 10:17:56 2010
New Revision: 160459

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160459
Log:
PR fortran/43040
* f95-lang.c (gfc_init_builtin_functions): Remove comment.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43040

[Bug fortran/43040] Wrong decl for mathbuiltins -> wrong code with LTO

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-06-08 20:39 
---
I'm currently looking at math builtins for __float128 support, so I'll check
that.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2010-02-12 11:07:37 |2010-06-08 20:39:06
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43040

[Bug fortran/43040] Wrong decl for mathbuiltins -> wrong code with LTO

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-16 13:51 ---
I think the comment applies only to FLOOR and ROUND - at least when it was
first written those were the only ones present. If I read the source code
correctly, the ME floor(l,f) is not directly called but instead the following
is generated:
  FLOOR(x) = INT(x) <= x ? INT(x) : INT(x) - 1
cf. trans-intrinsic.c. I also believe that ROUND [(l)round(l,f)] is properly
handled, which means that the PR could be closed. However, I leave it open for
someone else to cross check.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43040

[Bug fortran/43040] Wrong decl for mathbuiltins -> wrong code with LTO

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-16 08:35 ---
Subject: Bug 43040

Author: burnus
Date: Tue Feb 16 08:35:05 2010
New Revision: 156796

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156796
Log:
2010-02-16  Tobias Burnus  

PR fortran/43040
* gfortran.h (gfc_isym_id): Rename GFS_ISYM_GAMMA to
* GFS_ISYM_TGAMMA.
* intrinsic.c (add_functions): Ditto.
* iresolve.c (gfc_resolve_gamma): Call tgamma instead of gamma.
* mathbuiltins.def: Use TGAMMA instead of GAMMA with "tgamma".


Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
trunk/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/iresolve.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/mathbuiltins.def


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43040

[Bug fortran/43040] Wrong decl for mathbuiltins -> wrong code with LTO

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-12 13:54 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>   /* We define these separately as the fortran versions have different
>  semantics (they return an integer type) */
>   gfc_define_builtin ("__builtin_roundl", mfunc_longdouble[0],
> 
> ugh.  You can't overload existing builtin names with different semantics.
> The middle-end expects that of gcc/builtins.def.  For the above case
> there exists BUILT_IN_LROUNDL.

My impression is that the comment is old and does not apply to "roundl" as the
trans-intrinsics.c uses both BUILT_IN_ROUND* and BUILT_IN_LROUND - and given
that the "round*" were added much later than the comment according to svn
blame.

Having said that, I think one should check the other intrinsics in that file
(f95-lang.c) and remove then the bogus comment.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43040