[PATCH] PR fortran/91497 -- Silence conversion warnings for MIN1 and MAX1

Thomas Koenig tkoenig@netcologne.de
Tue Nov 2 18:39:21 GMT 2021


On 02.11.21 15:22, Manfred Schwarb wrote:
> Am 02.11.21 um 14:26 schrieb Thomas Koenig:
>> Hi Manfred,
>>
>>> In addition to the patches of Steve Kargl for PR 91497:
>>> The MIN1 and MAX1 intrinsics do explicit type conversions and should
>>> be silenced too for -Wconversion and -Wconversion-extra.
>>>
>>> Adjust testcase to only use *4 and *8 real types, provide a second
>>> testcase for *10 and *16 precisions.
>> Two points:
>>
>> We should modify existing test cases only when necessary, because
>> modification can impede a regression test.  It is better to create
>> a new one.
>>
> 
> Yes, but this was a quick-and-dirty test of mine, and I realized only afterwards
> that Steve had used it as-is. The new testcase is more consistent and more complete.
> Sandra got errors on targets without REAL(16) support and requested changes,
> so I decided to split it.
> 
> So you want me to "split" it in 3 parts?
> - existing test as is, only for targets with REAL(16) support
> - additional tests incl. complex intrinsics for targets with REAL(16) support
> - additional tests incl. complex intrinsics for all targets, only single and double precision
> 
> OTOH, it is perhaps not worth the trouble to do REAL(10) and REAL(16) tests, either
> it warns or it does not.

Anything that tests both complex and REAL(16) is fine by me.  I don't
think you need to test the combination of COMPLEX(16), both
codepaths have been seen by that time :-)

Or you can split it three ways, like you wrote above.

>> While we do recognize real*4 and real*8 and so on, these are
>> non-standard extensions, and I would like to avoid to have these
>> with new test cases.
>>
>> Instead of real*8, you can use real(8) or double precision.
>>
> 
> Well, double precision is deprecated AFAIK.

Not in Fortran 2018.

Best regards

	Thomas


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list