This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/66311] [5/6 Regression] Problems with some integer(16) values
- From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 18:13:55 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/66311] [5/6 Regression] Problems with some integer(16) values
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-66311-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 36128
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36128&action=edit
Alternative patch
Here's an alternative patch. I haven't yet tested it beyond
an expanded version of the testcase, but I think it's easier
to follow if we separate the "val != valres" and "need an extra
zero block" logic.