https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #25 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Feb 3 16:21:06 2019
New Revision: 268493
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268493&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-03 Uroš Bizjak
PR libfortran/88678
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #24 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Feb 3 16:19:36 2019
New Revision: 268492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-03 Uroš Bizjak
PR libfortran/88678
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #22)
> (In reply to nsz from comment #21)
> > this fix undid the change for bug 78314
> > do you plan to backport it to gcc 7,8 branches ?
Yes, I'd like to backport the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #22 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #21)
> this fix undid the change for bug 78314
> do you plan to backport it to gcc 7,8 branches ?
>
> note that in principle on targets where trapping is not supported
> the "imm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #21 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
this fix undid the change for bug 78314
do you plan to backport it to gcc 7,8 branches ?
note that in principle on targets where trapping is not supported
the "immediate alternate exception handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #19)
> that code was there for a reason.. now aarch64 fails because it cannot
> detect if the flags are supported or not.
>
> so if detection is turned off then on aarch64 "suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jan 30 20:44:35 2019
New Revision: 268402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/88678
* config/fpu-glibc.h (support_fp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 06:33:52PM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
>
> --- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner ---
My bad, I guess large_2.f90 has been failing for a while now (PR67531) and
isn't related to this bug or patches at all, so as far as I'm concerned, this
bug is resolved as fixed once the proposed patch above
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> Can someone please test the patch in Comment #9 on powerpc? It should fix
> all failures, modulo ieee_10.f90 which is fixed by [1].
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner ---
All of the ieee_*.f90 tests and large_1.f90 seem to be working on
powerpc64le-linux now. However, I'm seeing a new execution test failure with
large_2.f90. I'll have a quick look at that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jan 30 15:04:06 2019
New Revision: 268392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/88678
* config/fpu-glibc.h (set_fpu_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> Can someone please test the patch in Comment #9 on powerpc? It should fix
> all failures, modulo ieee_10.f90 which is fixed by [1].
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Can someone please test the patch in Comment #9 on powerpc? It should fix all
failures, modulo ieee_10.f90 which is fixed by [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01685.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 45564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45564&action=edit
Proposed patch
This patch fixes all ieee.exp failures in x86 when configured with fpu-glibc.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This PR is probably fixed by [1]. It looks that on powerpc feenableexcept fires
exception on stalled exception flags (these were raised when certain exception
was disabled).
Other than that, exception may fire
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> Hmm, the test case is explicitly adding the options
> -ffpe-trap=overflow,invalid, so is this a test case error? We tell it to
> trap on invalid fp ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:37:11PM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Confirmed. I don't think the mentioned revision caused the problem, other
> than
> adding a new test case that fails the same way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
Hmm, the test case is explicitly adding the options
-ffpe-trap=overflow,invalid, so is this a test case error? We tell it to trap
on invalid fp operations which we force it to do when generating the signalin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:39:05PM +, seurer at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
>
> --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Program received signal S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Program received signal SIGFPE: Floating-point exception - erroneous arithmetic
operation.
Backtrace for this error:
#0 0x3fffb17f0477 in ???
#1 0x3fffb14f1694 in feenableexcept
at ../sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #0)
> Program received signal SIGFPE: Floating-point exception - erroneous
> arithmetic operation.
>
> Backtrace for this error:
> #0 0x3fffb00304d7 in ???
What
27 matches
Mail list logo
