This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376

From: Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
To: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
Cc: gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:28:24 +0200
Subject: Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
References: <4290D077.1060106@gmail.com> <4291128F.1090500@physik.uni-muenchen.de> <42917846.5000302@gmail.com> <429221FE.9070607@physik.uni-muenchen.de> <42939232.8010909@gmail.com>

FX Coudert wrote:
>>you
>>should add a testcase for it, though.  The testcase I posted is not good
>>enough given that I got the exponents of the corner cases wrong.
> 
> 
> There can is no easy testcase for this PR. In fact, there are already 
> cases in the testsuite where we compute the format of 1.0, but the PR 
> only fails if some external C code modifies the FPU flags to issue FPE 
> in such a case.
> 
> So, I don't think this can be done in a portable way (and using the 
> dejagnu framework).

Well, we can't test for the same error, but we can verify that the output is
indeed correct.  This is what I meantt the testcase should be for.

- Tobi

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
  - From: FX Coudert

References:
- [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
  - From: FX Coudert
- Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
  - From: Tobias Schlüter
- Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
  - From: FX Coudert
- Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
  - From: Tobias Schlüter
- Re: [gfortran] PR libfortran/21376
  - From: FX Coudert

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