This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: c_by_val_1.f failure

From: Tim Prince <n8tm at aol dot com>
To: pinskia at gmail dot com
Cc: tprince at nospamcomputer dot org, burnus at net-b dot de, tprince at computer dot org, paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr, jvdelisle at verizon dot net, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:48:13 -0700
Subject: Re: c_by_val_1.f failure
References: <1176249009.c7dafebctprince@myrealbox.com> <de8d50360704101934s673fc664ida758ad7ec9567bf@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: tprince at computer dot org

pinskia@gmail.com wrote:

On 4/10/07, Timothy C Prince <tprince@myrealbox.com> wrote:
The patch-reverted test passes on my P4 cygwin installation.
Except you cannot revert it on targets like PPC where the struct is
passed via reference and _Complex is passed by value in two fp
registers.
-- Pinski

I was only answering Tobi's question, not advocating this as a solution. As you have a policy of requiring cygwin to fail at least one gcc test, without even marking as expected failures for cygwin, you could leave it as is. Or, the test, or the complex part of it, could be marked as not to be run on systems without <complex.h>. But, I have less ambition or experience than others at setting up those possibilities.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: c_by_val_1.f failure
  - From: François-Xavier Coudert

References:
- Re: Re: c_by_val_1.f failure
  - From: Timothy C Prince
- Re: Re: c_by_val_1.f failure
  - From: Andrew Pinski

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]