From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E70A73858D38; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:42:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E70A73858D38 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1664559741; bh=Ke20DTliFaRY6JhZbKd2UQlMRcL+GD3/Xq1vUiDrYMs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=etv0fXIZp4iaoaMx4HEPyyCZP4BHhyZbCfH6FjAa9Tft06iqObxio1cdUI0IQV1uz c++MzLT4Po3PVdHHV1kMhHbYjkOBewvpeDZ1KUpf7cqlFweO6I6SF/+nepNQjeVPEN jM71CXZmyCbgZapGukrdZKeS6TIuPUUaRMN0EFLI= From: "fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/107071] gfortran.dg/ieee/modes_1.f90 fails on aarch64-linux Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:42:21 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107071 --- Comment #9 from Francois-Xavier Coudert = --- OK so there are three things tested here: - underflow mode - rounding mode - trapping mode For glibc targets, underflow control is only marked as supported for the fl= oat and double types on __alpha__. For rounding mode, the code makes incorrect assumptions and I have proposed a prototype patch to support_fpu_rounding_mode(). For trapping modes, it means that support_fpu_trap() needs to perform corre= ct runtime checks. As I understand, this can be done by calling feenableexcept= () and checking whether it returns -1 (flag not supported) or something else (= flag supported). Then I need to restore the flag with fedisableexcept(), if the = flag was not already set prior to the feenableexcept() call. I will write a patch when I have time. Thanks for pointing the issue out to= me.=