This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag
- From: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist dot janne at gmail dot com>, Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:23:35 -0700
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 82143: add a -fdefault-real-16 flag
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGWvnykd97Ly0UpvX+NUF7QGh9EHt6_kg2d-N==-0_ZAkicQeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKwh3qjwQDNTpsDUZE_SFKkdQuC9EBk_UbkE52172+7Ea1UQ0g@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:14:42PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
> 2017-09-25 17:07 GMT+02:00 David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>:
> > promotion_3.f90 and promotion_4.f90 are failing on at least PowerPC
> > and AArch64. Are these new tests limited to x86 or some long double
> > assumptions?
>
> These tests require the availability of a 10- or 16-byte-wide REAL
> type, respectively. I have to admit that I do not have a complete
> overview of which targets in GCC's wide portfolio provide such a type.
>
> It seems that REAL(16) is supported via libquadmath on 32-bit x86,
> x86-64 and Itanium at least. I'm not sure about REAL(10).
>
> Targets that do not support such a type probably need to be XFAILed.
>
Janus, I think you can control with a dg option
dg-require-effective-target fortran_large_real
See, for example, gfortran.dg/random_3.f90
--
Steve
20170425 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUpyCsUKR4
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow