This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
[Patch, Fortran, comitted] Fix test-suite failure due to REAL(10)
- From: Tobias Burnus <tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:14:39 +0200
- Subject: [Patch, Fortran, comitted] Fix test-suite failure due to REAL(10)
array_constructor_23.f contained REAL(10) which failed on all platforms
which have not such a type such as PowerPC which has REAL(16).
I created a REAL(8) version, which was probably not really needed.
Checked in as Rev. 134678.
Tobias
Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- ChangeLog (Revision 134662)
+++ ChangeLog (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2008-04-25 Tobias Burnus <burnus@net-b.de>
+
+ * gfortran/array_constructor_23.f: Change REAL(10) into kind >
8.
+ * gfortran/array_constructor_24.f: New; REAL(8) version of the
test.
+
2008-04-25 Kai Tietz <kai.tietz@onevision.com>
* gcc.dg/array-quals-1.c: Add xfail for x86_64-*-mingw*.
Index: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_24.f
===================================================================
--- gfortran.dg/array_constructor_24.f (Revision 0)
+++ gfortran.dg/array_constructor_24.f (Revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+! { dg-do run }
+! Tests the fix for PR35944/6/7, in which the variable array constructors below
+! were incorrectly translated and wrong code was produced.
+!
+! Contributed by Dick Hendrickson <dick.hendrickson@gmail.com>
+!
+ program try_fa6013
+ call fa6013 (10, 1, -1)
+ call fa6077 (10, 1, -1, (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/))
+ call fa2083
+ end program
+
+ subroutine FA6013 (nf10, nf1, mf1)
+ integer, parameter :: kv = 4
+ REAL(KV) DDA1(10)
+ REAL(KV) DDA2(10)
+ REAL(KV) DDA(10), dval
+ dda = (/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/)
+ DDA1 = ATAN2 ((/(REAL(J1,KV),J1=1,10)/),
+ $ REAL((/(J1,J1=nf10,nf1,mf1)/), KV)) !fails
+ DDA2 = ATAN2 (DDA, DDA(10:1:-1))
+ if (any (DDA1 .ne. DDA2)) call abort ()
+ END
+
+ subroutine FA6077 (nf10,nf1,mf1, ida)
+ INTEGER IDA1(10)
+ INTEGER IDA2(10), ida(10)
+ IDA1 = IEOR((/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/),
+ $ (/(IDA(J1),J1=10,1,-1)/) )
+ IDA2 = IEOR ((/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/), (/10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1/) )
+ if (any (ida1 .ne. ida2)) call abort ()
+ END SUBROUTINE
+
+ subroutine fa2083
+ implicit none
+ integer j1,k
+ parameter (k=8) !failed for k=10
+ REAL(k) QDA1(10)
+ REAL(k) QDA(10), qval
+ qda = (/ 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 /)
+ QDA1 = MOD ( 1.1_k*( QDA(1) -5.0_k), P=( QDA -2.5_k))
+ DO J1 = 1,10
+ QVAL = MOD(1.1_k*(QDA(1)-5.0_k),P=(QDA(J1)-2.5_k))
+ if (qval .ne. qda1(j1)) call abort ()
+ ENDDO
+ END
+
Index: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_23.f
===================================================================
--- gfortran.dg/array_constructor_23.f (Revision 134661)
+++ gfortran.dg/array_constructor_23.f (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-require-effective-target fortran_large_real }
! Tests the fix for PR35944/6/7, in which the variable array constructors below
! were incorrectly translated and wrong code was produced.
!
@@ -34,7 +35,7 @@
subroutine fa2083
implicit none
integer j1,k
- parameter (k=10) !failed
+ parameter (k=selected_real_kind (precision (0.0_8) + 1)) ! failed
REAL(k) QDA1(10)
REAL(k) QDA(10), qval
qda = (/ 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 /)