https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Henlich ---
I tried to investigate the next issue:
write (aresult,fmt="(G0.10e0)") rn
if (aresult /= "0.313928E-2") stop 52
triggers "E specifier not allowed with g0 descriptor in format string" during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #34 from Thomas Henlich ---
Created attachment 47976
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47976=edit
Patch to fix issue with wrong exponent width for w=0
I appear to have found a fix for one of the remaining issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #33 from Thomas Henlich ---
Created attachment 47834
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47834=edit
Proposed fix for test
Proposed test for verifying the correct output after finishing this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
Bug 90374 depends on bug 36725, which changed state.
Bug 36725 Summary: g0 edit descriptor: Missing compile-time checking for
invalid g0.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36725
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #32 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks Thomas, I will have a look. It really helps to have a second pair of
eyes on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Henlich ---
Jerry, I reviewed some of the code in write_float.def:
478 /* Calculate the format of the exponent field. */
479 if (expchar && !(dtp->u.p.g0_no_blanks && e == 0))
480 {
481 edigits =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #29)
> I think this last patch above fixes the last adjustment needed. I could be
> wrong I suppose. Is this ready to close?
Jerry, thanks for the good work so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I think this last patch above fixes the last adjustment needed. I could be
wrong I suppose. Is this ready to close?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82033483fd74b1dcedab416d98673e212258498d
commit r10-6057-g82033483fd74b1dcedab416d98673e212258498d
Author: Jerry DeLisle
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Hi Thomas, stating the obvious, I do not find it straight forwaed to interpret
the standards because there are nooks and crannies and corner cases. At least
now I have the basic pieces in place. I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Henlich ---
I must admit that the following F2018 clause invalidates my previous comment,
because it applies to G editing specifically (but not to E editing)
13.7.5.2.2 Generalized real and complex editing
...
3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Henlich ---
On second thoughts, I change my mind to:
c) the same output as G0.10 editing ("0.10E+1235") because there is no
need to do it differently for E editing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Henlich ---
There is another issue with E0.d editing, concerning the case |exp| ≥ 1000 with
extended and quad precision.
In addition to tables 13.1 ... 13.3, the standard says:
13.7.2 Numeric editing
13.7.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Thu Jan 2 00:57:31 2020
> New Revision: 279828
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279828=gcc=rev
Jerry, please note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Thu Jan 2 00:57:31 2020
> New Revision: 279828
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279828=gcc=rev
> Log:
> PR 90374 d0.d,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Jan 2 00:57:31 2020
New Revision: 279828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279828=gcc=rev
Log:
PR 90374 d0.d, e0.d, es0.d, en0.d, g0.d and ew.d edit descriptors.
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
While working on this I found another issue:
program test
implicit none
real(8) :: rn
character(32) :: afmt, aresult
rn = 0.000314e8_8
write (*,fmt="(E0.8e0, a3)") rn, "<<<"
end
$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 07:47:46AM +, thenlich+gccbug at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
>
> --- Comment #18 from Thomas Henlich ---
> (In reply to Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #13)
> For example:
>
> gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2018, "positive width required at %L",
> _locus)
>
> should read
> gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2018, "zero width at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Thanks for feedback. Hopefully I can get to it next day or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #13)
As reference, see this comment:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081#c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #13)
As reference, see this comment:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081#c0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Henlich ---
Just a minor issue: I think that the sense of the message arguments in calls to
gfc_notify_std() should be inverted - they should describe the feature as
supported in the correct standard, and not as an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich ---
The following:
program test
write(*, "(e0.10e2)") 0.00314_4
end
results in error:
At line 2 of file test-f2018.f90 (unit = 6, file = 'stdout')
Fortran runtime error: Period required in format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #10)
--- snip ---
>
> 13.7.2.3.3 E and D editing
> ... If e is positive the exponent part contains e digits, otherwise it
> contains the minimum number of digits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #5)
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Thu Nov 28 18:33:20 2019
> New Revision: 278817
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278817=gcc=rev
> Log:
> PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
---snip---
> Jerry,
>
> your change to format.c generates a warning here:
>
> ../../../trunk/libgfortran/io/format.c: In function 'parse_format_list':
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 1 22:29:43 2019
New Revision: 278886
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278886=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-12-01 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/90374
* io/format.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #5)
> > Author: jvdelisle
> > Date: Thu Nov 28 18:33:20 2019
> > New Revision: 278817
>
> Jerry,
>
> your change to format.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 28 18:33:20 2019
New Revision: 278817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278817=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/90374
* io.c (check_format): Allow zero width
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 7 03:06:20 2019
New Revision: 277905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277905=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-11-06 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/90374
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 47116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47116=edit
Peliminary patch
This is a preliminary patch to allow others to check the results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Almost have this one. I am working out some details related to -std= specifier
and also the exponent length business.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
37 matches
Mail list logo
