nearest_1.f90 failure on i686-linux

[Dominique Dhumieres]

> I would suspect that it is target specific.  I can't reproduce
> this on i386-*-freebsd or amd64-*-freebsd.

I just check with gfortran 4.2.0 20061009 on an AMD64 Linux box and
I don't see it with the  -ffloat-store option.

> Does OSX have FLT_EVAL_METHOD?  Can you check whether the
> nextafterf and nextafter actually work?

Where should I look?  As said in my mail (between line), I don't think
the problem is with NEAREST, it looks more as an optimization problem
of TRANSFER. A diff between nearest_2_db.f90.003t.original files gives:

...
<     _gfortran_transfer_integer (&dt_parm.1, &ix, 4);
<     _gfortran_transfer_integer (&dt_parm.1, &iy, 4);
---
>     _gfortran_transfer_integer (&dt_parm.1, &ixe, 4);
>     _gfortran_transfer_integer (&dt_parm.1, &iye, 4);
...

with ix, and iy for the nonworking exe.  I don't know if this is significant
or not. 

Anyway, it is in general a very bad sign when the outcome of a program depends
on additional PRINT, IF, EQUIVALENCE when using optimization.

Thanks for the answer.

Dominique