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] |
Steve Ellcey wrote: >> Thanks for the review. However, after thinking about this some more >> myself, I came to the conclusion that considering the requirement to >> handle repeat counts, my other proposal to just align u.p.value is better. >> >> Hence I instead committed the attached patch as obvious (r145852). >> >> -- >> Janne Blomqvist > > This patch seems to cause new failures for me. I am getting failures in > gfortran.dg/f2003_io_[14567].f03 (maybe more, I stopped testing there). > > $ gfortran -g f2003_io_5.f03 -o x > $ ./x > At line 12 of file f2003_io_5.f03 (unit = 99, file = 'mynml') > Fortran runtime error: Bad DECIMAL parameter in data transfer statement > > Steve Ellcey > sje@cup.hp.com I've reverted this patch and instead committed the original one as r145875. Though I'm a bit perplexed why the alignment attribute didn't work. Is __attribute__ ((aligned (__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__))) fundamentally broken? Even more so, how can it cause regressions on targets that worked before? I suppose one thing could be that it exposes some out-of-bounds error in libgfortran? -- Janne Blomqvist
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |