This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.2, mainline] Fix forg77.f-torture/execute/f90-intrinsic-numeric.f on x86-64
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- To: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,rth at cygnus dot com, patches at x86-64 dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 07:14:51 +0200
- Subject: Re: [3.2, mainline] Fix forg77.f-torture/execute/f90-intrinsic-numeric.f on x86-64
- References: <20020902151128.A27003@chimera.suse.cz><3D73E0F5.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Toon Moene <email@example.com> writes:
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> g77.f-torture/execute/f90-intrinsic-numeric.f fails to compile on x86-64
>> because it uses TFmode for converting fp->integer in unsigned way and later
>> promotes the TFmode argument to be constant in CSE. CSE attempts to force
>> constant into memory in order to make instruction match that needs to get
>> constant_alignment, for that it needs type of the constants that gets into
>> ffe_type_for_mode that returns NULL and we get nice crash.
>> This patch fixes the problem by adding long_double_type_node to it.
>> Bootstrapped/regtested 3.2 release and mainline. OK for 3.2 branch
>> and mainline?
> As far as mainline is concerned, this patch is OK with me. BTW,
> doesn't long_double_type_node mean different things on different
> hardware (i.e., isn't a long double 80 bits on a plain x86 ?)
AFAIK: You have the right to ack it for the 3.2. branch, also. So, is
it ok there or not?
SuSE Labs firstname.lastname@example.org