Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Janus Weil wrote: > 2017-09-25 23:23 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl : >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: >>> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn : >>> >

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

Hi Rainer, >> Attached is a more complete patch, which should fix all problems that >> were reported concerning these two test cases. Would be great if >> someone could confirm that it works on a failing target (I currently >> only have access to x86_64-linux-gnu machines). > > I've just checked

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

Hi Janus, > Attached is a more complete patch, which should fix all problems that > were reported concerning these two test cases. Would be great if > someone could confirm that it works on a failing target (I currently > only have access to x86_64-linux-gnu machines). I've just checked

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-26 10:44 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil : > 2017-09-25 23:23 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl : >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: >>> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn : >>> > promotion_3.f90 and

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-25 23:23 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl : > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: >> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn : >> > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC >> > and AArch64.

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: > 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn : > > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC > > and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double > > assumptions? > > These

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn : > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC > and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double > assumptions? These tests require the availability of a 10- or 16-byte-wide REAL type,

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double assumptions? f951: Fatal Error: REAL(KIND=16) is not available for '-fdefault-real-16' option compilation terminated. f951: Fatal Error: REAL(KIND=10) is not

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-22 21:32 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil : > 2017-09-22 11:44 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil : >> 2017-09-22 9:11 GMT+02:00 Janne Blomqvist : >>> And since the standard requires that double precision variables are >>> twice as big as reals, in

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-22 11:44 GMT+02:00 Janus Weil : > 2017-09-22 9:11 GMT+02:00 Janne Blomqvist : >> And since the standard requires that double precision variables are >> twice as big as reals, in the absence of an explicit -fdefault-double= >> flag, would it

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:11:55AM +0300, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Janus Weil wrote: > > Thanks, Steve. I'm attaching the updated ChangeLog and the two test > > cases for the two new flags. Since this appears to be a somewhat > > controversial

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-22 9:11 GMT+02:00 Janne Blomqvist : > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Janus Weil wrote: >> Thanks, Steve. I'm attaching the updated ChangeLog and the two test >> cases for the two new flags. Since this appears to be a somewhat >>

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Janus Weil wrote: > Thanks, Steve. I'm attaching the updated ChangeLog and the two test > cases for the two new flags. Since this appears to be a somewhat > controversial feature, I'll wait two more days to allow for others to > contribute

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-21 22:38 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl : > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:10:42AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: >> Attached is an updated patch, where I'm adding -fdefault-real-10 >> according to Steve's suggestion. As with -fdefault-real-8 and >> -fdefault-real-16, I'm

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 09:10:42AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: > Attached is an updated patch, where I'm adding -fdefault-real-10 > according to Steve's suggestion. As with -fdefault-real-8 and > -fdefault-real-16, I'm choosing to set the double kind to 16 in this > case. Also I'm renaming

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

Attached is an updated patch, where I'm adding -fdefault-real-10 according to Steve's suggestion. As with -fdefault-real-8 and -fdefault-real-16, I'm choosing to set the double kind to 16 in this case. Also I'm renaming flag_default_real to flag_default_real_8 (for symmetry reasons and to make the

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-18 11:31 GMT+02:00 Dominique d'Humières : > (1) real(16) is an order of magnitude slower than real(8) for the codes I > have tested (a long time ago). So its real utility is quite low. I am fully aware that performance with quad-precision is lower than with double

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

2017-09-18 16:08 GMT+02:00 Steve Kargl : > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:02:22AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> >> >> attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler >> >> flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran. >> > >> > What about

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:02:22AM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: > Hi Steve, > > >> attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler > >> flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran. > > > > What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to add bloat to the > > compiler, then you might

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

As said in bugzilla (1) real(16) is an order of magnitude slower than real(8) for the codes I have tested (a long time ago). So its real utility is quite low. (2) I think your time would be better used by dealing with your assigned PRs. But now the wasted time is done, I don’t have further

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

Hi Steve, >> attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler >> flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran. > > What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to add bloat to the > compiler, then you might as well to it right. well, yeah. If my only aim was to add bloat to the

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:42:01PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: > > attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler > flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran. What about -fdefault-real-10? If you're going to add bloat to the compiler, then you might as well to it right. --

[Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag

Hi all, attached is a (technically) simple patch that implements the compiler flag "-fdefault-real-16" for gfortran. I know that there is some opposition against this, but I am proposing it anyway, because I do think it is useful after all. My reasoning is as follows: 1) Despite tons of