FAIL: gfortran.dg/edit_real_1.f90 on Darwin8

[Dominique Dhumieres]

>     Isn't the failure in gfortran.dg/edit_real_1.f90 likely due to
> the fact that gfortran (unlike the gcc and g++ compiler) doesn't
> generate the $LDBL128 versions of the symbols for function calls
> related to long doubles?

I don't think so (but I may be wrong). As far as I can tell
edit_real_1.f90 deals only with doubles. Using  -fdump-tree-original
I get:

      static real8 C.967 = 1.79769313486231570814527423731704356798070567526e+308;

for both avatars of gfortran. So the problem is either with the building
of C.967 (does not it use gmp/mpfr?) or in the I/O, but I don't see where
the code should need $LDBL128 versions.

Dominique