https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #31 from Andrea Corallo ---
I confirm master now builds for me aarch64-none-elf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #29 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Fritz Reese :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8eecc2a919033ad4224756a8759d8e94c0e4bc2
commit r10-7913-ge8eecc2a919033ad4224756a8759d8e94c0e4bc2
Author: Fritz Reese
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #28 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1868599f8daf7798018ce8a8f314015f5a2ac520
commit r10-7893-g1868599f8daf7798018ce8a8f314015f5a2ac520
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Fritz Reese from comment #26)
> Created attachment 48351 [details]
> Patch to protect trigd functions based on system availability (v2)
>
> I've attached a new patch for trigd. Below is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48332|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #25 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> The dec_math.f90 FAILs are at all opt levels:
> ( ) qsind( 60.00)
> 0.866025403784438646763723170753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The dec_math.f90 FAILs are at all opt levels:
( ) qsind( 60.00) 0.866025403784438646763723170753
0.866025403784438596588302061718
Note: The following floating-point exceptions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #23 from Andrea Corallo ---
"foreese at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
>
> --- Comment #21 from Fritz Reese ---
> Created attachment 48332
> -->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have now bootstrapped/regtested #c20 + #c21 on x86_64-linux and i686-linux
but I see
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_math.f90 -O0 execution test
+FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_math.f90 -O1 execution test
+FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #21 from Fritz Reese ---
Created attachment 48332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48332=edit
Patch to protect trigd functions based on system availability
Patch for trigd include pieces to check for HAVE_XXX[*].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48326|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Working on it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #18 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > I've missed that. I'm afraid there is no way around missing sinl/cosl/tanl
> > etc.,
> > those aren't likely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #16)
> Maybe they can be implemented like
>
> long double _gfortran_xyz (long double x)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
>
> --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Thus, I think we can extend the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thus, I think we can extend the patch I've attached (and fix the two fmaf to
fmal spots), plus do the HAVE_INLINE_BUILTIN_* in configure.ac either through a
config/math.m4 macro, or through a loop over the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> I've missed that. I'm afraid there is no way around missing sinl/cosl/tanl
> etc.,
> those aren't likely implemented inline by the compiler. The only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've missed that. I'm afraid there is no way around missing sinl/cosl/tanl
etc.,
those aren't likely implemented inline by the compiler. The only exception
would be for targets where long double and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #12 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 48326 [details]
> gcc10-pr94694.patch
>
> Completely untested full patch. Will try to test it on x86_64-linux where
> it hopefully shouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Fritz Reese from comment #8)
> I like this solution in principle but we would need to add fabsl, fmal, and
> copysignl, right? And then we are still left with the question: what do we
> do if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #10 from Andrea Corallo ---
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 48326
> -->
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 48326
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48326=edit
> gcc10-pr94694.patch
>
> Completely untested full patch. Will try to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48326=edit
gcc10-pr94694.patch
Completely untested full patch. Will try to test it on x86_64-linux where it
hopefully shouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foreese at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I meant something like:
--- libgfortran/configure.ac.jj 2020-01-24 22:34:36.340641225 +0100
+++ libgfortran/configure.ac2020-04-21 18:03:02.494598615 +0200
@@ -392,6 +392,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
...
> > Since Fortran isn't release critical the only P1-ish part is that fortran
> > build is enabled on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Note in another bug it was said that libgfortran requires a C99 runtime,
> when that's not available you should disable gfortran build. GCC (or
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever confirmed|0
32 matches
Mail list logo
