This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 4.1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/large_integer_kind_1.f90 on sparc/sparc64 linux...
- From: Christian Joensson <christian dot joensson at gmail dot com>
- To: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:39:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: gcc 4.1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/large_integer_kind_1.f90 on sparc/sparc64 linux...
- References: <5460e3330510040220r595b5e2fk3b62696ca1d0a3f8@mail.gmail.com> <5460e3330510040223q5b8222edk94bd23ecf73e8db1@mail.gmail.com> <4342583F.7000808@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Christian Joensson <christian dot joensson at gmail dot com>
On 10/4/05, FX Coudert <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
> This testcase should only be run if there is a 128-bit integer kind
> available. This looks like it's not the case here, but then why is
> check_effective_target_fortran_large_int returning true?
>
> I can't really understand that. What are you tcl/expect/dejagnu versions?
well, looking at the testresult posting,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-10/msg00130.html, you see
tcl-8.4.7-2
expect-5.42.1-1
dejagnu-1.4.4-2
and they're from FC3 compiled for sparc (the corona tree, aurora
linux's development tree, see http://auroralinux.org)
however, there still may very well be issues with these variants of the tools...
is there anything I can provide you with to have a better guess? I'm
definately willing to debug if you direct me...
--
Cheers,
/ChJ