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: [Committed] XFAIL gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90


On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 09:29:50PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 8:05 PM Steve Kargl <
> sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I've added the following patch to a recently committed testcase.
> >
> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90   (revision 267413)
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_9.f90   (working copy)
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -! { dg-do run }
> > +! { dg-do run { xfail arm*-*-gnueabi arm*-*-gnueabihf } }
> >  program foo
> >     use ieee_arithmetic
> >     use iso_fortran_env
> >
> 
> The problem seems to be that GFortran says the real128 kind value is > 0
> (i.e. that the target supports quad precision floating point (with software
> emulation, presumably)), but then trying to use it fails.
> 
> Would be nice if somebody who cares about arm-none-linux-gnueabihf could
> help figure out the proper resolution instead of papering over it with
> XFAIL.
> 
> But I guess XFAIL is good enough until said somebody turns up.
> 

Thanks for chasing down the details.  I have no access to arm*-*-*.

It's a shame the real128 is defined, and arm*-*-* doesn't
actually use it.  I certainly have no time or interest in
fix this.

-- 
Steve


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