From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-358890-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14315 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2011 12:10:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 14305 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2011 12:10:23 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_JV
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:10:10 +0000
From: "jvdelisle at charter dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/48906] Wrong rounding results with -m32
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jvdelisle at charter dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48906-4-kU5My0qmqa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48906-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48906-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:10:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00416.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906

--- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at charter dot net 2011-06-06 12:09:48 UTC ---
On 06/06/2011 01:38 AM, thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net wrote:
> For a scale factor 0, we are done. Good work, thank you!
>
> A scale factor != 0 does not work yet, you wrote you are still working on it,
> is that correct?

I am now.  ;)

>
> print "(-2pg12.3)", 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 expected 0.002E+01
> print "(-1pg12.3)", 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 expected 0.020E+00
> print "(0pg12.3)", 0.02 ! 0.200E-01
> print "(1pg12.3)", 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 expected 2.000E-02
> print "(2pg12.3)", 0.02 ! 0.200E-01 expected 20.00E-03
>
My confusion seems to be when scale factor is to be ignored and when not,  I 
will give the standard another read.