This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: egcs-19990502 u77-test.f failure on Irix6.5 -Reply
- To: Prince_Tim_C at solarturbines dot com
- Subject: Re: egcs-19990502 u77-test.f failure on Irix6.5 -Reply
- From: craig at jcb-sc dot com
- Date: 3 May 1999 22:55:17 -0000
- Cc: zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu, egcs-bugs at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- Cc: craig at jcb-sc dot com
- References: <"372E27B3.6E8C.2C92.000*/c=US/admd= /prmd=Cat/o=GWise/s=Prince/g=Tim/i=C/"@MHS>
>A certain number of legacy codes are using etime and maybe
>dtime, particularly as f95 is not yet generally available in Unix. I
>don't know why anyone having f90 or g77 available would be
>using ctime, but I thought it was there only for legacy
>compatibility. If anyone is writing or modifying code, they
>should be using DATE_AND_TIME. My main interest here is in
>being able to show a clean testsuite for g77; either these things
>should work or be deprecated or removed. That's prompt work!
I think any legacy codes using [cde]time are using the function
forms, which aren't being changed, or are providing their own
subroutine forms anyway, in which case they're presumably using
EXTERNAL or -funix-intrinsics-delete or whatever.
Anyway, I want to track down the problems we're having until I can
identify a culprit. If it turns out it's just too painful properly
supporting CTIME_subr (or CTIME generally) in particular, I'll worry
about that then. But it'll probably turn out to be some bug that
afflicts more than just CTIME, so I'd like to find it before we ship
1.2 with a hidden bug because we turned off testing of CTIME to early.
tq vm, (burley)