* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-03 18:05 ` inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-03 19:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-04-03 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-03 18:05:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 23859
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23859
patch v1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-03 18:05 ` [Bug fortran/48426] " inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-03 19:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-03 19:50 ` inform at tiker dot net
` (19 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-04-03 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-03 19:25:39 UTC ---
There is already -fdefault-real-8, -fdefault-integer-8, and
-fdefault-double-8. This is already 3 too many hacks. Adding
an additional 7 options is 7 too many.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-03 18:05 ` [Bug fortran/48426] " inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-03 19:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-04-03 19:50 ` inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-03 21:14 ` Jerry DeLisle
2011-04-03 20:33 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (18 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-04-03 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-03 19:49:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> There is already -fdefault-real-8, -fdefault-integer-8, and
> -fdefault-double-8. This is already 3 too many hacks. Adding
> an additional 7 options is 7 too many.
>From a purist perspective, I absolutely gree with you. Practically however,
in dealing with legacy codes (*), the value of being able to do this should not
be underestimated. If this was a useless thing to do, why would Lahey/Fujitsu
have included these flags?
(*) Let's face it, a big part of Fortran's relevance stems from legacy codes.
(As an anecdote, I once worked at an unnamed US national lab, and one of my
group's main reasons *against* adoption of g77 was the absence of
-fdefault-real-8.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 19:50 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-03 21:14 ` Jerry DeLisle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jerry DeLisle @ 2011-04-03 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: inform at tiker dot net; +Cc: gcc-bugs
On 04/03/2011 12:49 PM, inform at tiker dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Kloeckner<inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-03 19:49:51 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
>> There is already -fdefault-real-8, -fdefault-integer-8, and
>> -fdefault-double-8. This is already 3 too many hacks. Adding
>> an additional 7 options is 7 too many.
>
>> From a purist perspective, I absolutely gree with you. Practically however,
> in dealing with legacy codes (*), the value of being able to do this should not
> be underestimated. If this was a useless thing to do, why would Lahey/Fujitsu
> have included these flags?
>
Lets take another perspective, different than Steve's comments. Lets assume
no-one is blindly using the legacy codes with changes in default kinds without
at least some understanding of the code and knowing what it is doing. With
modern editors or scripts, one could modify declarations to use a
kind=parameter. This could be done to change REAL to REAL(kind=wp). wp meaning
working precision. One could also update real constants to append _wp to them.
Then add a use statement at the beginning of each file that sets wp. Several
different precision parameters could be set up and used in varying places
depending on the application. One gets a finer degree of control.
Now I have presented a simplistic example and I am sure the real code may offer
some additional challenges. But, the net result would be more flexible code that
is more portable and the original issue becomes moot.
If ones knowledge of the code is greater then mine it is likely one could see
more opportunities for improving it with simple changes like this, especially in
the code that is critical to the issue. Once the changes are made, perhaps even
incrementally over time in small parts, they never have to be changed back,
because the code is standard conforming to do so.
Now, we can make arguments to go in either direction; put the burden of
resolving the issue on the compiler team or put the burden on the
user/developers. I think Steve is saying that we have an obligation on the
compiler side to protect users who may not be as knowledgeable/experienced from
doing stupid things, whereas someone such as yourself would probably know what
to be careful of and could avoid it. Providing the adjustable precision on the
user/developer side assures that it is done carefully and correctly, specific to
the application.
Now the flip side is that the less than 100 lines of code patch on the compiler
side is a lot less effort then perhaps updating the 100,000 lines of legacy
code. However, the compiler changes affect thousands of users and thousands of
applications. That means there is, lets say, 1000 times more risk to the change
on the compiler side. (With no warranty of course).
I am leaning toward we need to err on the conservative side, and let others
comment from here. We have had these discussions on this topic many times
before. I don't think there is an easy answer. My personal preference would be
to update the user code. (aka software maintenance).
Regards
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-03 19:50 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-03 20:33 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-04-03 21:14 ` jvdelisle at frontier dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2011-04-03 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> 2011-04-03 20:33:12 UTC ---
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:49:53PM +0000, inform at tiker dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-03 19:49:51 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > There is already -fdefault-real-8, -fdefault-integer-8, and
> > -fdefault-double-8. This is already 3 too many hacks. Adding
> > an additional 7 options is 7 too many.
>
> From a purist perspective, I absolutely gree with you. Practically
> however, in dealing with legacy codes (*), the value of being able
> to do this should not be underestimated. If this was a useless thing
> to do, why would Lahey/Fujitsu have included these flags?
>
> (*) Let's face it, a big part of Fortran's relevance stems from legacy codes.
This is the number one reason why these options (including the
current 3 [1]) should not be available in any compiler. Few people
use these types of options for debugging. Most have a single
precision algorithm, but want a double (or higher) precision
routine. Instead of actually trying to understand and implement
a proper double (or higher) precision version, people simply use
these types of options without checking the robustness of the
algorithm.
In glancing at the patch, there are at least two problems. First,
this chunk
+ else if (saw_i8 && gfc_option.flag_integer4_kind == 8 )
+ {
+ gfc_default_integer_kind = 8;
+
+ /* Even if the user specified that the default integer kind be 8,
+ the numeric storage size isn't 64. In this case, a warning will
+ be issued when NUMERIC_STORAGE_SIZE is used. */
+ gfc_numeric_storage_size = 4 * 8;
+ }
is simply a bad idea. If one changes gfc_default_integer_kind to 8,
then the numeric storage size should be updated to 8 * 8. I suspect
(but haven't checked) that the above breaks not only EQUIVALENCE
and COMMON but several assumptions within libgfortran. Second,
this chunk
+ if (ts->type == BT_REAL || ts->type == BT_COMPLEX)
+ {
+ if( ts->kind == 4 && gfc_option.flag_real4_kind == 8) ts->kind = 8;
+ if( ts->kind == 4 && gfc_option.flag_real4_kind == 10) ts->kind = 10;
+ if( ts->kind == 4 && gfc_option.flag_real4_kind == 16) ts->kind = 16;
+ if( ts->kind == 8 && gfc_option.flag_real8_kind == 4) ts->kind = 4;
+ if( ts->kind == 8 && gfc_option.flag_real8_kind == 10) ts->kind = 10;
+ if( ts->kind == 8 && gfc_option.flag_real8_kind == 16) ts->kind = 16;
appears to assume that ts->kind=10 and ts->kind=16 are available.
This may or may not be true depending on the target and the options
used during execution of configure. One needs to check if 10 and 16
are available.
> (As an anecdote, I once worked at an unnamed US national lab, and one of my
> group's main reasons *against* adoption of g77 was the absence of
> -fdefault-real-8.)
Hopefully, the unnamed national lab wasn't using options like these
with critical software without actually checking the robustness of
the code.
[1] I'm the person who did the initial clean-up of the poorly implemented
-r8, -i8, and -d8 options (See ChangLog-2005). Others after me fixed my
fixes. In rectrospect, I wish I had simply removed these options
because the options probably do not do what a user thinks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-03 20:33 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2011-04-03 21:14 ` jvdelisle at frontier dot com
2011-04-05 2:12 ` inform at tiker dot net
` (16 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at frontier dot com @ 2011-04-03 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at frontier dot com 2011-04-03 21:14:41 UTC ---
On 04/03/2011 12:49 PM, inform at tiker dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Kloeckner<inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-03 19:49:51 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
>> There is already -fdefault-real-8, -fdefault-integer-8, and
>> -fdefault-double-8. This is already 3 too many hacks. Adding
>> an additional 7 options is 7 too many.
>
>> From a purist perspective, I absolutely gree with you. Practically however,
> in dealing with legacy codes (*), the value of being able to do this should not
> be underestimated. If this was a useless thing to do, why would Lahey/Fujitsu
> have included these flags?
>
Lets take another perspective, different than Steve's comments. Lets assume
no-one is blindly using the legacy codes with changes in default kinds without
at least some understanding of the code and knowing what it is doing. With
modern editors or scripts, one could modify declarations to use a
kind=parameter. This could be done to change REAL to REAL(kind=wp). wp meaning
working precision. One could also update real constants to append _wp to them.
Then add a use statement at the beginning of each file that sets wp. Several
different precision parameters could be set up and used in varying places
depending on the application. One gets a finer degree of control.
Now I have presented a simplistic example and I am sure the real code may offer
some additional challenges. But, the net result would be more flexible code
that
is more portable and the original issue becomes moot.
If ones knowledge of the code is greater then mine it is likely one could see
more opportunities for improving it with simple changes like this, especially
in
the code that is critical to the issue. Once the changes are made, perhaps
even
incrementally over time in small parts, they never have to be changed back,
because the code is standard conforming to do so.
Now, we can make arguments to go in either direction; put the burden of
resolving the issue on the compiler team or put the burden on the
user/developers. I think Steve is saying that we have an obligation on the
compiler side to protect users who may not be as knowledgeable/experienced from
doing stupid things, whereas someone such as yourself would probably know what
to be careful of and could avoid it. Providing the adjustable precision on the
user/developer side assures that it is done carefully and correctly, specific
to
the application.
Now the flip side is that the less than 100 lines of code patch on the compiler
side is a lot less effort then perhaps updating the 100,000 lines of legacy
code. However, the compiler changes affect thousands of users and thousands of
applications. That means there is, lets say, 1000 times more risk to the
change
on the compiler side. (With no warranty of course).
I am leaning toward we need to err on the conservative side, and let others
comment from here. We have had these discussions on this topic many times
before. I don't think there is an easy answer. My personal preference would be
to update the user code. (aka software maintenance).
Regards
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-03 21:14 ` jvdelisle at frontier dot com
@ 2011-04-05 2:12 ` inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-05 2:13 ` inform at tiker dot net
` (15 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-04-05 2:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-05 02:12:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:49:53PM +0000, inform at tiker dot net wrote:
> This is the number one reason why these options (including the
> current 3 [1]) should not be available in any compiler. Few people
> use these types of options for debugging. Most have a single
> precision algorithm, but want a double (or higher) precision
> routine. Instead of actually trying to understand and implement
> a proper double (or higher) precision version, people simply use
> these types of options without checking the robustness of the
> algorithm.
First, some use of type promotion is--at least to some extent--legitimate. If
you would like to use a certain piece of code in single and double precision
and maintain compatibility with pure F77, then having the compiler able to
rewrite your code is a useful thing to have available. Second, as I explained,
there are uses of this in debugging. Obviously, maintaining multiple versions
of the source code is not really an option in this case especially. To
reiterate, the practical use of these flags should not be underestimated.
Further, trying to convince users by not implementing this feature will simply
drive them away from free tools. The need exists.
> In glancing at the patch, there are at least two problems. First,
> this chunk
>
> + else if (saw_i8 && gfc_option.flag_integer4_kind == 8 )
> + {
> + gfc_default_integer_kind = 8;
> +
> + /* Even if the user specified that the default integer kind be 8,
> + the numeric storage size isn't 64. In this case, a warning will
> + be issued when NUMERIC_STORAGE_SIZE is used. */
> + gfc_numeric_storage_size = 4 * 8;
> + }
>
> is simply a bad idea.
This just imitates the behavior of -fdefault-integer-8, whose treatment is
right directly above this snippet. So if our code is broken, so is the code for
the existing flag.
> Second, this chunk
>
> + if (ts->type == BT_REAL || ts->type == BT_COMPLEX)
> + {
> + if( ts->kind == 4 && gfc_option.flag_real4_kind == 8) ts->kind = 8;
> + if( ts->kind == 4 && gfc_option.flag_real4_kind == 10) ts->kind = 10;
> + if( ts->kind == 4 && gfc_option.flag_real4_kind == 16) ts->kind = 16;
> + if( ts->kind == 8 && gfc_option.flag_real8_kind == 4) ts->kind = 4;
> + if( ts->kind == 8 && gfc_option.flag_real8_kind == 10) ts->kind = 10;
> + if( ts->kind == 8 && gfc_option.flag_real8_kind == 16) ts->kind = 16;
>
> appears to assume that ts->kind=10 and ts->kind=16 are available.
> This may or may not be true depending on the target and the options
> used during execution of configure. One needs to check if 10 and 16
> are available.
Fixed in an updated version of the patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-05 2:12 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-05 2:13 ` inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-15 14:57 ` inform at tiker dot net
` (14 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-04-05 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #23859|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-05 02:13:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 23876
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23876
patch v2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-05 2:13 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-15 14:57 ` inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-15 15:31 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-04-15 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-15 14:53:52 UTC ---
Ping?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-15 14:57 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-15 15:31 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-15 16:12 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (12 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-04-15 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2011.04.15 15:27:59
CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-15 15:27:59 UTC ---
I have looked over the patch. I need to do some tests and I have about three
bugs in front of this one so please give me a few days.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-15 15:31 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-04-15 16:12 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-04-15 16:43 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2011-04-15 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> 2011-04-15 16:02:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:29:36PM +0000, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I have looked over the patch. I need to do some tests and I have about three
> bugs in front of this one so please give me a few days.
>
I skimmed the patch. It is still wrong.
These parts should not be needed:
+ if (!saw_r8)
+ fatal_error ("real kind=8 not available for -freal-4-real-8 option");
+ if (!saw_r4)
+ fatal_error ("real kind=4 not available for -freal-8-real-4 option");
gfortran always has real(4) and real(8) on all important targets.
I also think that the description is the manual is lacking. For example,
+freal-4-real-8
+Fortran RejectNegative
+Interpret any 4-byte real as an 8-byte real
I think the word 'any' is incorrect.
There also should be a warning here. "Warning: This option is provided
for debugging purposes, and may give unexpected results for general
use."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-15 16:12 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2011-04-15 16:43 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-15 17:00 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (10 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-04-15 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-15 16:40:58 UTC ---
Steve, I can clean this up but i am not clear on copyright assignment. Any
issues on this?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-15 16:43 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-04-15 17:00 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-04-15 19:49 ` inform at tiker dot net
` (9 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2011-04-15 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> 2011-04-15 16:59:41 UTC ---
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:41:06PM +0000, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Steve, I can clean this up but i am not clear on copyright assignment. Any
> issues on this?
The patch touches several files and more than a few lines,
so I think it may exceed the threshold of a patch without
copyright assignment. We should probably check with
Andreas Kloeckner if he has an assignment on file.
Note, the manual changes to add a warning is needed because
these options effective storage association, which has an impact
on EQUIVALENCE and COMMON and perhaps others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-15 17:00 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2011-04-15 19:49 ` inform at tiker dot net
2011-04-15 20:32 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-04-15 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #13 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-04-15 19:46:45 UTC ---
Just requested the assignment forms. I'll let you know when we've returned
them.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-15 19:49 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-04-15 20:32 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-07 19:28 ` inform at tiker dot net
` (7 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-04-15 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-15 20:30:44 UTC ---
Super! If you have not already figured it out. We are really short on help.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-15 20:32 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-07 19:28 ` inform at tiker dot net
2011-11-07 20:04 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
` (6 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-11-07 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #15 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-11-07 19:25:32 UTC ---
Zydrunas and I have successfully completed the copyright assignment process,
and we're ready to move forward with this patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-07 19:28 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2011-11-07 20:04 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-11-10 0:37 ` inform at tiker dot net
` (5 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu @ 2011-11-07 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> 2011-11-07 19:49:39 UTC ---
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 07:25:32PM +0000, inform at tiker dot net wrote:
> --- Comment #15 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-11-07 19:25:32 UTC ---
> Zydrunas and I have successfully completed the copyright assignment process,
> and we're ready to move forward with this patch.
>
Andreas, that's good news. If you are unaware of the
submission policies, here's a short list:
1) Use 'svn diff > somefile.diff' to create the patch.
The diff format should be unidiff (if possible).
2) Write ChangeLog entries. The ones you may need to worry
about are gcc/fortran/ChangeLog, gcc/libgfortran/ChangeLog,
and gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ChangeLog. The ChangeLog
entries should be separate from the diff.
3) Send the diff, ChangeLog entries, and a description of
why and what you have done and how you tested the change
to fortran@ and gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-07 20:04 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
@ 2011-11-10 0:37 ` inform at tiker dot net
2012-01-16 18:28 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: inform at tiker dot net @ 2011-11-10 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #17 from Andreas Kloeckner <inform at tiker dot net> 2011-11-10 00:12:58 UTC ---
Done.
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 0:37 ` inform at tiker dot net
@ 2012-01-16 18:28 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-16 18:29 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-16 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #18 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-16 18:22:20 UTC ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Jan 16 18:22:16 2012
New Revision: 183217
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183217
Log:
2012-01-16 Zydrunas Gimbutas <gimbutas@cims.nyu.edu>
Andreas Kloeckner <kloeckner@cims.nyu.edu>
Steven G. Kargl <kargl@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/48426
* gfortran.h (gfc_option_t): Add members flag_*_kind to store kind.
* lang.opt: Add options -freal-4-real-8, -freal-4-real-10,
-freal-4-real-16, -freal-8-real-4, -freal-8-real-10, -freal-8-real-16
and -finteger-4-integer-8. User-desired type conversion information.
* decl.c (gfc_match_old_kind_spec,kind_expr): Type conversions
in declaration parsing.
* trans-types.c (gfc_init_kinds): User-specified type conversion
checked for current backend.
* primary.c (match_integer_constant,match_real_constant): Implement
type conversion in constant parsing.
* options.c (gfc_init_options,gfc_handle_option): Translate input
options to flags in internal options data structure.
* invoke.texi: Document new options. Re-order options in Options
summary section.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
trunk/gcc/fortran/invoke.texi
trunk/gcc/fortran/lang.opt
trunk/gcc/fortran/options.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/primary.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-16 18:28 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-16 18:29 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-18 18:50 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-16 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-16 18:25:16 UTC ---
Reset "Assigned To" from jerryd to me.
Patch committed to trunk. I may backport in
a few days or close the PR as FIXED. I haven't
decided, yet.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-16 18:29 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-18 18:50 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-19 8:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-19 17:11 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-18 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
--- Comment #20 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-18 17:24:23 UTC ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 18 17:24:14 2012
New Revision: 183277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183277
Log:
Insert ChangeLog entry that should have been included
in svn revision 183217 for PR fortran/48426.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-18 18:50 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-19 8:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-19 17:11 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-19 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-19 08:14:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> I may backport in a few days or close the PR as FIXED.
I would prefer to not backport it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/48426] [patch] Quad precision promotion
2011-04-03 18:04 [Bug fortran/48426] New: [patch] Quad precision promotion inform at tiker dot net
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2012-01-19 8:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-19 17:11 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-19 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #22 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-19 16:53:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > I may backport in a few days or close the PR as FIXED.
>
> I would prefer to not backport it.
OK. Closing as fixed on trunk.
Zydrunas and Andreas, thanks for the patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread