On 06/06/2011 01:38 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
For a scale factor 0, we are done. Good work, thank you!
A scale factor != 0 does not work yet, you wrote you are still working on it,
is that correct?
I am now. ;)
print (-2pg12.3), 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 expected 0.002E+01
On 04/29/2011 12:14 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
---snip---
The suggested patch fails on examples in this test where d0.
I think for rounding up we need to test if ALL the cut off digits are zeros.
I have committed the whole ball of wax. I really needed to do this
On 04/24/2011 02:41 PM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48615
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlichthenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-04-24 21:41:16 UTC ---
I don't have access to a build system until Tuesday, so I couldn't test
On 04/17/2011 06:25 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
--- snip ---
I agree.
Let's open a new bug for this. This bug is about the correct choice of format,
not about rounding (this is somewhere else in the code).
Yes, new PR. We are using builtin snprintf for DTOA.
#define
On 04/03/2011 12:49 PM, inform at tiker dot net wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Kloecknerinform at tiker dot net 2011-04-03
19:49:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
There is already -fdefault-real-8, -fdefault-integer-8, and
On 10/02/2009 05:35 AM, ros at rzg dot mpg dot de wrote:
--- Comment #12 from ros at rzg dot mpg dot de 2009-10-02 12:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] PARAMETER statement
in module subroutines
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Depends where you
Aharon Robbins wrote:
Hi. After several tries and a modicum of googling, I found that
CFLAGS=-m64 ../gcc-4.4.0/configure --disable-multilib
was the magic incantation to get gcc to get into the second stage of
the boostrap. This is on a Fedora Core 10 system.
This seems to be an old
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-13 08:49 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
This is similar to 34432 is some ways. I think we are not matching the (\ \)
correctly. I don't think gfc_match_expr has the tooling for it yet.
The
m = where + s-active;
if (s-physical_offset != m lseek (s-fd, m, SEEK_SET) 0)
return NULL;
I don't think this is correct.
You are dead on, I have fixed this and have a patch regression testing now. The
above did not break backspace_6.f90, but it broke some other things. Stay
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-22 06:22 ---
Is the issue here only the wording of the error message
Yes, only the message text.
Error: GENERIC non-INTRINSIC procedure '%s' is not allowed as an actual
argument
should be
Have you looked with valgrind or similar to see if there are errors occurring?
Please definitely put in the testsuite. There may be something we don't see yet
going on here.
Roland Winkler wrote:
The (shortened) fortran-77 subroutine attached below causes a
segmentation fault of g77 when I execute
$ g77 -O3 -c -funroll-loops foo.f
No problems occur without optimization.
$ g77 --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 3.3.5 20050117 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)
Copyright (C) 2002
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #45 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-13 05:32
---
(In reply to comment #44)
sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2K started to fail on Mar. 19:
And then start passing and then again started to fail again on/around April
1st. HJL when will
nuno dot bandeira at ist dot utl dot pt wrote:
--- Comment #2 from nuno dot bandeira at ist dot utl dot pt 2006-04-06
23:56 ---
Subject: Re: -ffast-math crash
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-06 23:47 ---
Don't
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
Paul Thomas wrote:
Andrew,
and the testcase here.
¿Que?
Paul
See attachment in PR26001
LAPACK tests run OK with the patch. Thanks to Dominique Dhumieres for initial
reduced case and Andrew Pinski for squeezing this in. Hope we can get it
committed to 4.1
I am getting the following on Trunk:
At line 1162 of file schkee.f
Fortran runtime error: Bad integer for item 1 in list input
With -O3 -march=pentium4 -funroll-loops
I think we reported this before but I am not finding the PR.
IIRC StevenB was going to delve into this optimization bug.
Can
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 09:05
---
Jerry, isn't that one completely fixed?
For the most part this is fixed. We do not handle the case of negative strides,
but we do handle strides of more than 1. So I
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 06:55 ---
I have verified that
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00874.html
is the cause. Since gcc 4.1 and 4.2 are OK, the problem may be in the backport.
OK, I see now this is not a problem
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 07:08
---
No, it's in fact easier than that. We shouldn't come into us_read for this
file, which is formatted! Probably a bad default flag is set.
I think you are right. I have
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 23:14
---
(In reply to comment #1)
At line 2 of file nml.f
Fortran runtime error: End of file
Debugging shows that the bytes_left field of the stream is not set correctly
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 13:05
---
This bug is in glibc (same code on non-glibc platform, such as sparc-solaris,
will give the right answer). It was reported in glibc bugzilla as #1466
21 matches
Mail list logo
