This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC 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]

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-09 10:08 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Don't worry, I do. :-)  It comes from the linker, trigged by the
> source code for fedisableexcept, using machinery that's set up
> by to warn for functions that shouldn't be used, like in this
> case, where it's not (can't be) implemented as the warning says.

OK, I see. I was only stating that glibc specifies that the
feenableexcept/fedisableexcept should be available, even if they actually can't
do anything (and in that case, calling them with argument 0 is fine). That's
why I wasn't expecting this issue, and still think the warning not conforming
to the documented behaviour.

> You seem to think they are defined?  They're not, except for a single:
> #define FE_ALL_EXCEPT 0

No, that's what I was thinking should happen. That is OK (and the fpu-glibc.h
code should indeed work fine, that is do nothing).

>  if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0)
>    fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT);

OK, I guess if it removes that warning it's OK. It shouldn't break anything.
I'll do it when I have some time.


fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-11-07 23:24:28         |2005-11-09 10:08:53
               date|                            |

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