From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15753 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2011 20:47:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 15744 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Dec 2011 20:47:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_IB,TW_SG 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; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:46:53 +0000 From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/51057] FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90 -O0 execution test on powerpc*-*-* Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:47:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00272.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl 2011-12-03 20:46:36 UTC --- On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 08:36:43PM +0000, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057 > > --- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2011-12-03 20:36:43 UTC --- > whilst I appreciate that there are wider issues with IBM long double (and its > availability) > [I read the two PRs you cross-referenced]. > > In this case, it appears to be a different situation. > - what Dominique is indicating is that the tests are likely failing on an IBM > long double target because the number of mantissa bits is 106 rather than the > 112 for float128. 113 bits for IEEE binary 128 format. > So I wonder what opportunities exist for adjusting the test expectation > depending on the target. > (since this, presumably, will affect all IBM long double targets). > > from 'c' we have some #defines that would allow us to detect the IBM case on > ppc (although, presumably because it's provided by a library, we don't get the > same for x86). It would even be a reasonable first approximation to assume IBM > long double on ppc and float128 on x86. This test came into being when libquadmath came into the tree. The correct, and only, solution for targets whose long double representation is double-double math is to XFAIL the test on those targets.