https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 1 19:01:24 2016
New Revision: 232029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-01 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/68867
* g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jan 1 18:13:17 2016
New Revision: 232027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-01 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/68867
* g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #22)
> Jerry, thanks very much for investigating. Given all the discussion here I
> agree with XFAILing this test for all powerpc. However, it does appear to
> be one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt ---
Jerry, thanks very much for investigating. Given all the discussion here I
agree with XFAILing this test for all powerpc. However, it does appear to be
one of those intermittent failures, so we'll have to p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Just to be double sure, I reverted my patch on the PowerPC I use for testing
and see that default_format_denormal_2.f90 fails regardless, so this is a
separate issue from this PR. I think xfailing the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19)
> (In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #12)
>
> > I checked with the revision previous to this patch and the revision for this
> > patch and the only difference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #12)
> I checked with the revision previous to this patch and the revision for this
> patch and the only differences were fmt_g0_7 succeeding and
> default_format_denor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #16)
> Hm, but comment #8 from PR24685 indicates that this is clearly a regression.
> At that time Andrew Pinski asserted that this failure was restricted to
> Darwin,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:52:19PM +, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
>
> --- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
> Hm, but comment #8 from PR24685 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm, but comment #8 from PR24685 indicates that this is clearly a regression.
At that time Andrew Pinski asserted that this failure was restricted to Darwin,
and powerpc*-linux didn't fail the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #15 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:50:35PM +, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
>
> Disabling the test will indeed make it "pass". But it used to run OK and now
> no longer does so is disabling it the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #14 from Bill Seurer ---
Disabling the test will indeed make it "pass". But it used to run OK and now
no longer does so is disabling it the right solution? Looking at pr23685 it
looks like this has gone back and forth several times.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:03:55PM +, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/default_format_denormal_2.f90 -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/default_format_denormal_2.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
A Patch has been submitted for approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-12/msg00080.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
>
> I doubt that will fix the problem: it seems related to to a rounding issue
> with REAL(16). Which REAL(16) is used? "IBM" one or float_128?
True, it on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Removing the comment gives:
>
> 3 39 0.6919E-0001
> In the test case, I need to adjust the line;
>
> if (astring(2:2) /= '9') then
>
> to:
>
> if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
In the test case, I need to adjust the line;
if (astring(2:2) /= '9') then
to:
if (astring(3:3) /= '9') then
since the previous patch corrected a missing leading zero on the formatting.
I will do so tomo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #4 from William Seurer ---
Removing the comment gives:
3 39 0.6919E-0001
Program aborted. Backtrace:
Aborted (core dumped)
It's been failing for at least a week; that's when I fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
26 matches
Mail list logo
