This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org 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/29810] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Unsatisfied symbol "fmodl" in libgfortran shared library



------- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-04 09:09 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> Created an attachment (id=12735)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12735&action=view) [edit]
> Compilable version of previous patch.

FX and Eric,

Thanks for plugging the hole there. The attention that I can give to gfortran
is very limited at present. I committed the FMOD patch, under the impression
that the library had been fixed across the board. Since then, I have been more
or less continuously on the road.

I am curious as to why the test in the original patch, for the presence of the
builtin, does not work.  In principle, it should furnish the old tree-ssa
version of MOD.  Would it not be an idea to apply the C99 condition there?

Regards

Paul

PS As for breaking the compiler on a regular basis; there was a lot that was
fundamentally wrong with it that is now fixed - the trend is upwards, even if
there are occasional 'reverses'.  Two consistent causes of these reverses are
(i) the range of platforms an (ii) the fact that the testsuite is not a
systematic regurgitation of the F95 standard.  (i) is, of course, a big plus
for gcc and we should try to be mindful of it.  However, we part-time
volunteers have relatively limited resources and rely on PRs like this one
coming in as quickly as possible.  On (ii), we have no effort to do the
equivalent of the NIST suite for F77, on which gfortran is tested regularly. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29810


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