[Bug libfortran/33225] New: [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[Bug libfortran/33225] New: [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-08/msg00476.html (revision
127846), some formatted output are missing the last digit on Darwin (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-08/msg00586.html):

! { dg-do run }
! PR32554 Bug in P formatting
! Test case from the bug reporter
program gfcbug66
  real(8) :: x = 1.0e-100_8
  character(50) :: outstr
  write (outstr,'(1X,2E12.3)')    x, 2 * x
  print *, outstr
  if (outstr.ne."    0.100E-99   0.200E-99") call abort
  ! Before patch 2 * x was put out wrong
  write (outstr,'(1X,1P,2E12.3)') x, 2 * x
  print *, outstr
  if (outstr.ne."    1.000-100   2.000-100") call abort
end program gfcbug66

output

     0.100E-99   0.200E-99                         
     1.000-10   2.000-10                         
Abort

instead of

     0.100E-99   0.200E-99                         
     1.000-100   2.000-100                         

and

! { dg-do run }
! { dg-require-effective-target fortran_large_real }
! PR 24174 and PR 24305
program large_real_kind_form_io_1
  ! This should be 10 on systems that support kind=10
  integer, parameter :: k = selected_real_kind (precision (0.0_8) + 1)
  real(kind=k) :: a,b(2), c, eps
  complex(kind=k) :: d, e, f(2), g
  character(len=180) :: tmp
  ! Test real(k) scalar and array formatted IO
  eps = 10 * spacing (2.0_k) ! 10 ulp precision is enough.
  d = cmplx ( 1.0_k, 2.0_k, k)
  write (tmp, '(2(e12.4e5, 2x))') d
  print *, tmp
  read (tmp, '(2(e12.4e5, 2x))') e
  if (abs (e - d) > eps) call abort()
end program large_real_kind_form_io_1

outputs

 .1000E+0000  .2000E+0000                                                       
At line 15 of file large_real_kind_form_io_1_red.f90
Fortran runtime error: Bad value during floating point read

instead of

 .1000E+00001  .2000E+00001                                                     

Also the code

print *,  huge(1.0), -huge(1.0), huge(1.0d0), -huge(1.0d0)
print *,  nearest(huge(1.0),-1.0), nearest(-huge(1.0),1.0),
nearest(huge(1.0d0),-1.0d0), nearest(-huge(1.0d0),1.0d0)
print *,  nearest(huge(1.0),1.0), nearest(-huge(1.0),-1.0),
nearest(huge(1.0d0),1.0d0), nearest(-huge(1.0d0),-1.0d0)
end

gives

edit_real_1_red_3.f90:3.18:

print *,  nearest(huge(1.0),1.0), nearest(-huge(1.0),-1.0), nearest(huge(1.0d0)
                 1
Error: Result of NEAREST overflows its kind at (1)
edit_real_1_red_3.f90:3.42:

print *,  nearest(huge(1.0),1.0), nearest(-huge(1.0),-1.0), nearest(huge(1.0d0)
                                         1
Error: Result of NEAREST overflows its kind at (1)
edit_real_1_red_3.f90:3.68:

print *,  nearest(huge(1.0),1.0), nearest(-huge(1.0),-1.0), nearest(huge(1.0d0)
                                                                   1
Error: Result of NEAREST overflows its kind at (1)
edit_real_1_red_3.f90:3.96:

e(1.0),1.0), nearest(-huge(1.0),-1.0), nearest(huge(1.0d0),1.0d0), nearest(-hug
                                                                          1     
Error: Result of NEAREST overflows its kind at (1)

I was expecting no errors and 

 3.4028235E+38 -3.4028235E+38 1.7976931348623157E+308 -1.7976931348623157E+308
 3.4028233E+38 -3.4028233E+38 1.7976931348623155E+308 -1.7976931348623155E+308
 +Inf -Inf +Inf -Inf

If I remove the offending line, the output is:

  3.4028235E+38 -3.4028235E+38  1.797693134862316E+30 -1.797693134862316E+30
  3.4028233E+38 -3.4028233E+38  1.797693134862316E+30 -1.797693134862316E+30

Due to this regression, the tests gfortran.dg/fmt_p_1.f90,
gfortran.dg/output_exponents_1.f90, and
gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_form_io_1.f90 fail on PPC Darwin.


-- 
           Summary: [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted
                    output
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libfortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
GCC target triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin8


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-08-29 19:29 -------
Note that the problem disappears on Darwin with -m64 (excepted the problem
Error: Result of NEAREST overflows its kind at (1)).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-08-29 22:18 -------
I have run the NIST test suite and I got:

...
6 runtime errors
FM111 has NIST regression.
FM406 has NIST regression.
FM903 has NIST regression.
FM907 has NIST regression.
FM909 has NIST regression.
FM912 has NIST regression.
...

FM111 has both a missing last digit in the exponent:

           COMPUTED: ********* .12345E+10 .12345E+01 *********** .12345E+10
           CORRECT:  ********* .12345E+10 .12345E+010 *********** .12345E+10

disappearing with -m64, and

           COMPUTED:      0   .0   .0    0   .0E+0   **   -.4E-2
           CORRECT:       0   .0   .0    0   .0E+0   .0   -.4E-2

for both cases.

FM406 gives:

...
                 COMPUTED=            -0.0      
                 CORRECT=   0.0                 
...

for both cases.

These failures in both cases are not new, I see them with
gcc version 4.3.0 20070720 (experimental)

The last four failures disappear with -m64. The three first are missing 
last digits and the last one fails with:

...
TEST  22  FAIL                                  RECORD 1 - ON GW.DEN FORMAT
TEST  23  FAIL                                  RECORD 4 - ON IN.N FORMAT  
...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

Re: [Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[Andrew Pinski]

On 29 Aug 2007 22:18:58 -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> FM406 gives:
>
> ...
>                  COMPUTED=            -0.0
>                  CORRECT=   0.0

Actually this is expected if you did not supply -fno-sign-zero or
-std=f95 as the default is to print negative 0 as -0.0 as in the 2003
Fortran standard while F95 says don't print the negative sign for
-0.0.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[pinskia at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gmail dot com  2007-08-29 22:23 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

On 29 Aug 2007 22:18:58 -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> FM406 gives:
>
> ...
>                  COMPUTED=            -0.0
>                  CORRECT=   0.0

Actually this is expected if you did not supply -fno-sign-zero or
-std=f95 as the default is to print negative 0 as -0.0 as in the 2003
Fortran standard while F95 says don't print the negative sign for
-0.0.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-08-29 23:02 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is
 some formatted output

> Actually this is expected if you did not supply -fno-sign-zero ...

You are right!-) I have added the option in the script I am using
and all the failures disappear with -m64, but only for FM406 without.
I think the ** is due to the attempt to output -.0.

Thanks for the infos.

Dominique


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-30 00:53 -------
*** Bug 33223 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jpr at csc dot fi


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-30 00:55 -------
Test case from PR33223.
program t
  print*,huge(1.0d0),tiny(1.0d0)
end program t

gives the output

  1.797693134862316E+30^@  2.225073858507201E-30^@


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-08-30 07:03 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is
 some formatted output

> gives the output
>
>   1.797693134862316E+30^@  2.225073858507201E-30^@

^@ is binary 0 and is not display on my terminal. If I send
the output to a file and look at it with vi, I do see the ^@.

Could people using 64 bit system pass the test(s) with -m32?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output (on 32bit targets)

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-30 15:03 -------
Can reproduce the problems with x86-64/Linux. -m64 works, but -m32 fails.


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org, burnus at gcc dot gnu
                   |                            |dot org
 GCC target triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin8       |
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
            Summary|[4.3 regression] Missing    |[4.3 regression] Missing
                   |last digit is some formatted|last digit is some formatted
                   |output                      |output (on 32bit targets)


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output (on 32bit targets)

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-08-30 21:04 -------
The following code:

real x
x = 1.0
print '(3E20.2e2)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.2e3)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.2e4)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.2e5)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.2e6)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.2e7)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.3e2)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.3e3)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.3e4)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.3e5)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.3e6)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.3e7)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.4e2)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.4e3)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.4e4)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.4e5)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.4e6)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
print '(3E20.4e7)', x, x/10.0, x/100.0
end

gives on Darwin without options:

            0.10E+01            0.10E+00            0.10E-01
           0.10E+00^@           0.10E+00^@           0.10E-00^@
          0.10E+00^@e          0.10E+00^@e          0.10E-00^@e
        0.10E+00^@e+0        0.10E+00^@e-0        0.10E-00^@e-0
       0.10E+00^@e+00       0.10E+00^@e-01       0.10E-00^@e-02
           0.100E+01           0.100E+00           0.100E-01
          0.100E+00^@          0.100E+00^@          0.100E-00^@
         0.100E+00^@0         0.100E+00^@0         0.100E-00^@0
        0.100E+00^@0e        0.100E+00^@0e        0.100E-00^@0e
       0.100E+00^@0e+       0.100E+00^@0e-       0.100E-00^@0e-
      0.100E+00^@0e+0      0.100E+00^@0e-0      0.100E-00^@0e-0
          0.1000E+01          0.1000E+00          0.1000E-01
         0.1000E+00^@         0.1000E+00^@         0.1000E-00^@
        0.1000E+00^@0        0.1000E+00^@0        0.1000E-00^@0
       0.1000E+00^@00       0.1000E+00^@00       0.1000E-00^@00
      0.1000E+00^@00e      0.1000E+00^@00e      0.1000E-00^@00e
     0.1000E+00^@00e+     0.1000E+00^@00e-     0.1000E-00^@00e-

with -m64:

            0.10E+01            0.10E+00            0.10E-01
           0.10E+001           0.10E+000           0.10E-001
          0.10E+0001          0.10E+0000          0.10E-0001
         0.10E+00001         0.10E+00000         0.10E-00001
        0.10E+000001        0.10E+000000        0.10E-000001
       0.10E+000000^@       0.10E+000000^@       0.10E-000000^@
           0.100E+01           0.100E+00           0.100E-01
          0.100E+001          0.100E+000          0.100E-001
         0.100E+0001         0.100E+0000         0.100E-0001
        0.100E+00001        0.100E+00000        0.100E-00001
       0.100E+000001       0.100E+000000       0.100E-000001
      0.100E+000000^@      0.100E+000000^@      0.100E-000000^@
          0.1000E+01          0.1000E+00          0.1000E-01
         0.1000E+001         0.1000E+000         0.1000E-001
        0.1000E+0001        0.1000E+0000        0.1000E-0001
       0.1000E+00001       0.1000E+00000       0.1000E-00001
      0.1000E+000001      0.1000E+000000      0.1000E-000001
     0.1000E+000000^@     0.1000E+000000^@     0.1000E-000000^@

instead of (xlg, g95):

            0.10E+01            0.10E+00            0.10E-01
           0.10E+001           0.10E+000           0.10E-001
          0.10E+0001          0.10E+0000          0.10E-0001
         0.10E+00001         0.10E+00000         0.10E-00001
        0.10E+000001        0.10E+000000        0.10E-000001
       0.10E+0000001       0.10E+0000000       0.10E-0000001
           0.100E+01           0.100E+00           0.100E-01
          0.100E+001          0.100E+000          0.100E-001
         0.100E+0001         0.100E+0000         0.100E-0001
        0.100E+00001        0.100E+00000        0.100E-00001
       0.100E+000001       0.100E+000000       0.100E-000001
      0.100E+0000001      0.100E+0000000      0.100E-0000001
          0.1000E+01          0.1000E+00          0.1000E-01
         0.1000E+001         0.1000E+000         0.1000E-001
        0.1000E+0001        0.1000E+0000        0.1000E-0001
       0.1000E+00001       0.1000E+00000       0.1000E-00001
      0.1000E+000001      0.1000E+000000      0.1000E-000001
     0.1000E+0000001     0.1000E+0000000     0.1000E-0000001


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output (on 32bit targets)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output (on 32bit targets)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-31 01:37 -------
Subject: Bug 33225

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Aug 31 01:37:31 2007
New Revision: 127950

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127950
Log:
2007-08-30  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR libfortran/33225
        * io/write.c: Revert changes from patch of 2007-08-27.
        * io/write_float.def: Remove file, reverting addition.

Removed:
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write_float.def
Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output (on 32bit targets)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-31 01:43 -------
Patch causing regression reverted.  Closing this PR.  Thanks for reporting. 
The next round on the per kind write float patch will have these test cases
addressed. 


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] [4.3 regression] Missing last digit is some formatted output (on 32bit targets)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-04 04:47 -------
Found the problem.  I will submit the update patch against this PR


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-04 04:49 -------
Changed title to reflect what this is, not really a regression at this point.


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.3 regression] Missing    |Missing last digit in some
                   |last digit is some formatted|formatted output (on 32bit
                   |output (on 32bit targets)   |targets), per kind
                   |                            |write_float


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-09-04 04:58 -------
Did you also have a look to the other problem:

print *,  nearest(huge(1.0),1.0), nearest(-huge(1.0),-1.0), nearest(huge(1.0d0)
                 1
Error: Result of NEAREST overflows its kind at (1)
?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-04 05:39 -------
Yes, I also checked the huge testcase and its all clean now.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[patchapp at dberlin dot org]

------- Comment #16 from patchapp at dberlin dot org  2007-09-04 05:40 -------
Subject: Bug number PR33225

A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg00176.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-04 05:44 -------
Dominique: The problem in comment 14 is not fixed and I do not think its
related.  I will check further though.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #18 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-09-04 05:47 -------
> I do not think its related.

I just realized that and I filled PR33296.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-04 10:22 -------
This one can be considered FIXED, I think.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-05 00:51 -------
Subject: Bug 33225

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Sep  5 00:51:18 2007
New Revision: 128114

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128114
Log:
2007-03-04  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR libfortran/33225
        * io/write.c (stdbool.h): Add include. (sign_t): Move typedef to
        new file write_float.def. Include write_float.def.
        (extract_real): Delete. (calculate_sign): Delete.
        (calculate_exp): Delete. (calculate_G_format): Delete.
        (output_float): Delete. (write_float): Delete.
        * io/write_float.def (calculate_sign): Added.
        (output_float): Refactored to be independent of kind and added to this
        file for inclusion. (write_infnan): New function to write "Infinite" or
        "NaN" depending on flags passed, independent of kind.
        (CALCULATE_EXP): New macro to build kind specific functions. Use it.
        (OUTPUT_FLOAT_FMT_G): New macro, likewise. Use it.
        (DTOA, DTOAL): Macros to implement "decimal to ascii".
        (WRITE_FLOAT): New macro for kind specific write_float functions.
        (write_float): Revised function to determine kind and use WRITE_FLOAT
        to implement kind specific output.

Added:
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write_float.def
Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2007-09-05 09:19 -------
Subject: Re:  Missing last digit in some formatted
 output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

If I am not mistaken, the test case did not go through.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225

[Bug libfortran/33225] Missing last digit in some formatted output (on 32bit targets), per kind write_float

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #22 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-06 01:32 -------
Subject: Bug 33225

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Sep  6 01:32:11 2007
New Revision: 128173

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128173
Log:
2007-09-06  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR libfortran/33225
        * gfortran.dg./fmt_float.f90: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_float.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33225