[Bug fortran/60128] New: Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[Bug fortran/60128] New: Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[walt.brainerd at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

            Bug ID: 60128
           Summary: Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: walt.brainerd at gmail dot com

I think the output should be -444.44E-03

$ cat x.f90
write(*,"(en15.2)") -.44444
end

Walt@HP_Laptop /cygdrive/c/walt/Testing
$ gfortran -Wall x.f90

Walt@HP_Laptop /cygdrive/c/walt/Testing
$ ./a
    -444.40E-03

Walt@HP_Laptop /cygdrive/c/walt/Testing
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (rev5, Built by MinGW-W64 project) 4.8.1
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-02-10
            Summary|Wrong ouput using en edit   |[4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong
                   |descriptor                  |ouput using en edit
                   |                            |descriptor
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Confirmed for 4.8.2 and trunk (4.9). 4.7.3 gives

    -444.44E-03

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jb at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
This likely due to r185433. This fixed by the following patch

--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-01-21 08:30:57.000000000
+0100
+++ libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-02-10 10:23:13.000000000 +0100
@@ -1215,8 +1211,8 @@ determine_en_precision (st_parameter_dt 
     nbefore = 3 - nbefore;
     }
   int prec = f->u.real.d + nbefore;
-  if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_UNSPECIFIED
-      && dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_PROCDEFINED)
+  /* if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_UNSPECIFIED
+      && dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_PROCDEFINED) */
     prec += 2 * len + 4;
   return prec;
 }

For the following extended test

write(*,"(en15.2)") -.44444
write(*,"(rp,en15.2)") -.44444
write(*,"(rc,en15.2)") -.44444
write(*,"(rz,en15.2)") -.44444
write(*,"(rd,en15.2)") -.44444
write(*,"(en15.2)") -.44446
write(*,"(en15.1)") -.44444
end

before the patch, the output is

    -444.40E-03
    -444.40E-03
    -444.44E-03
    -444.44E-03
    -444.45E-03
    -444.50E-03
     -444.0E-03

after the patch, it is

    -444.44E-03
    -444.44E-03
    -444.44E-03
    -444.44E-03
    -444.45E-03
    -444.46E-03
     -444.4E-03

Regtesting in progress. Note that the block

-  if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_UNSPECIFIED
-      && dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_PROCDEFINED)

appears in several places in libgfortran/io/write_float.def and I fail to see
the logic.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
With the patch in comment 2, the test gfortran.dg/edit_real_1.f90 fails for the
outputs #5, 6, and 13

 5     12.873E+03z    
 6     12.344E-06z    
 13    999.999E+00z    

instead of the expected outputs

 5     12.874E+03z    
 6     12.345E-06z    
 13      1.000E+03z

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
The regression reported in comment 3 disappears with the following patch

--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-01-21 08:30:57.000000000
+0100
+++ libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-02-10 11:35:55.000000000 +0100

@@ -326,7 +322,7 @@ output_float (st_parameter_dt *dtp, cons
      for IEEE 754, this ought to be round to nearest, ties to
      even, corresponding to the Fortran ROUND='NEAREST'.  */
       case ROUND_PROCDEFINED: 
-      case ROUND_UNSPECIFIED:
+      /* case ROUND_UNSPECIFIED: */
       case ROUND_ZERO: /* Do nothing and truncation occurs.  */
     goto skip;
       case ROUND_UP:
@@ -338,6 +334,7 @@ output_float (st_parameter_dt *dtp, cons
       goto skip;
     goto updown;
       case ROUND_NEAREST:
+      case ROUND_UNSPECIFIED:
     /* Round compatible unless there is a tie. A tie is a 5 with
        all trailing zero's.  */
     i = nafter + nbefore;
@@ -1215,8 +1212,8 @@ determine_en_precision (st_parameter_dt 
     nbefore = 3 - nbefore;
     }
   int prec = f->u.real.d + nbefore;
-  if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_UNSPECIFIED
-      && dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_PROCDEFINED)
+  /* if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_UNSPECIFIED
+      && dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_PROCDEFINED) */
     prec += 2 * len + 4;
   return prec;
 }

>From the comment

      /* For processor defined and unspecified rounding we use
         snprintf to print the exact number of digits needed, and thus
         let snprintf handle the rounding.  On system claiming support
         for IEEE 754, this ought to be round to nearest, ties to
         even, corresponding to the Fortran ROUND='NEAREST'.  */
      case ROUND_PROCDEFINED:
      case ROUND_UNSPECIFIED:
      case ROUND_ZERO: /* Do nothing and truncation occurs.  */

I think it is wrong to handle ROUND_PROCDEFINED and ROUND_UNSPECIFIED as
ROUND_ZERO.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
While the patch in comment 4 fixed they PR, it was quite hawkish and did not
explained the problem. After a deeper analysis it turns out that it is yet
another "off by one bug" fixed by the following one liner:

--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-01-21 08:30:57.000000000
+0100
+++ libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-02-16 20:56:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -1204,7 +1200,7 @@ determine_en_precision (st_parameter_dt 
   if (nprinted == -1)
     return -1;

-  int e = atoi (&buffer[5]);
+  int e = atoi (&buffer[4]);
   int nbefore; /* digits before decimal point - 1.  */
   if (e >= 0)
     nbefore = e % 3;

as &buffer[5] does not include the sign of the exponent.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
While preparing a test case, I have been hit by another snag!-(
With the trunk and 4.8, the following test

write(*,"(en15.2)") 98765.
write(*,"(en15.3)") 9876.5
write(*,"(en15.1)") 987.65
write(*,"(en15.2)") 98.765
write(*,"(en15.3)") 9.8765
write(*,"(en15.1)") .98765
write(*,"(en15.2)") .098765
write(*,"(en15.3)") .0098765
write(*,"(en15.1)") .00098765
write(*,"(en15.2)") .000098765
write(*,"(en15.2)") 98735.
write(*,"(en15.3)") 9873.5
write(*,"(en15.1)") 987.35
write(*,"(en15.2)") 98.735
write(*,"(en15.3)") 9.8735
write(*,"(en15.1)") .98735
write(*,"(en15.2)") .098735
write(*,"(en15.3)") .0098735
write(*,"(en15.1)") .00098735
write(*,"(en15.2)") .000098735
end

gives the following output at run time

      98.76E+03
      9.876E+03
      990.0E+00    <- wrong
      98.76E+00
      9.876E+00
      990.0E-03    <- wrong
      98.77E-03
      9.876E-03
      990.0E-06    <- wrong
      98.76E-06
      98.73E+03
      9.873E+03
      990.0E+00    <- wrong
      98.73E+00
      9.873E+00
      990.0E-03    <- wrong
      98.73E-03
      9.873E-03
      990.0E-06    <- wrong
      98.73E-06

while 4.7 gives

      98.77E+03
      9.877E+03
      987.7E+00
      98.76E+00
      9.877E+00
      987.6E-03
      98.77E-03
      9.876E-03
      987.7E-06
      98.76E-06
      98.74E+03
      9.874E+03
      987.3E+00
      98.74E+00
      9.873E+00
      987.3E-03
      98.73E-03
      9.874E-03
      987.4E-06
      98.73E-06

The reason of these wrong code is due to the rounding of x between 0.95*10**d
and 1.0*10**d to 1.*10**d. it follows that the exponent returned by 'nprinted =
DTOA(y,0,tmp);' in '#define EN_PREC(x,y)' is the actual exponent 'e' plus one.
I don't understand why this affects only the cases 'e%3==0' and I have no idea
how this can be fixed -> any help welcomed!.

Note that for the "working" cases I am not fully happy with the rounding: at
least for 98765., 9876.5, 98735., and 9873.5 which have no rounding errors, I
am expecting with round to even on tie: 98.76E+03, 98.76E+03, 98.74E+03, and
98.74E+03.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
The following patch fixes the issues reported in comment 6

--- ../_clean/libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-01-21 08:30:57.000000000
+0100
+++ libgfortran/io/write_float.def    2014-02-18 09:59:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -1157,10 +1153,23 @@ OUTPUT_FLOAT_FMT_G(16,L)

 #define EN_PREC(x,y)\
 {\
-    GFC_REAL_ ## x tmp;                \
+    GFC_REAL_ ## x tmp, one = 1.0;                \
     tmp = * (GFC_REAL_ ## x *)source;                \
     if (ISFINITE (y,tmp))                    \
-      nprinted = DTOA(y,0,tmp);                    \
+      {\
+    nprinted = DTOA(y,0,tmp);                    \
+    int e = atoi (&buffer[4]); \
+    if (buffer[1] == '1') \
+      {\
+        tmp = (calculate_exp_ ## x (-e)) * tmp; \ 
+        tmp = one - (tmp < 0 ? -tmp : tmp); \
+        if (tmp > 0) \
+          e = e - 1; \
+      }\
+    nbefore = e%3; \
+    if (nbefore < 0) \
+      nbefore = 3 + nbefore; \
+      }\
     else\
       nprinted = -1;\
 }\
@@ -1172,6 +1181,7 @@ determine_en_precision (st_parameter_dt 
   int nprinted;
   char buffer[10];
   const size_t size = 10;
+  int nbefore; /* digits before decimal point - 1.  */

   switch (len)
     {
@@ -1204,16 +1214,6 @@ determine_en_precision (st_parameter_dt 
   if (nprinted == -1)
     return -1;

-  int e = atoi (&buffer[5]);
-  int nbefore; /* digits before decimal point - 1.  */
-  if (e >= 0)
-    nbefore = e % 3;
-  else
-    {
-      nbefore = (-e) % 3;
-      if (nbefore != 0)
-    nbefore = 3 - nbefore;
-    }
   int prec = f->u.real.d + nbefore;
   if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_UNSPECIFIED
       && dtp->u.p.current_unit->round_status != ROUND_PROCDEFINED)

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P4
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.3

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> This likely due to r185433. This fixed by the following patch
...
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> The following patch fixes the issues reported in comment 6

Dominique, Jerry: What's the status of those patch set? Can this be wrapped up
as patch for GCC 4.9? If so, it should be done soon.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I have reviewed and tested the patch from comment #7 on x86-64 with -m32 and
-m64 and I think its ready. Dominique mentioned to possibly add a volatile. I
have not tested on the other platforms.

I can commit as soon as I get the go signal.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar  8 06:04:34 2014
New Revision: 208423

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-08  Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>

    PR libgfortran/60128
    * io/write_float.def (output_float): Remove unused variable
    nzero_real. Replace a double space with a single one.
    (determine_en_precision): Fix wrong handling of the EN format.

    PR libfortran/60128
    * gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write_float.def

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 16 00:18:21 2014
New Revision: 208603

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15  Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>

    Backport from mainline
    PR libgfortran/60128
    * io/write_float.def (output_float): Remove unused variable
    nzero_real. Replace a double space with a single one.
    (determine_en_precision): Fix wrong handling of the EN format.

Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/libgfortran/io/write_float.def

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 16 00:35:19 2014
New Revision: 208604

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-15  Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>

    Backport from mainline
    PR libfortran/60128
    * gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90: New test.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.8. Closing

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
                 CC|                            |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

--- Comment #14 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The new testcase FAILs on Solaris 9/x86 on mainline:

FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O1  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O2  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O3 -g  execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -Os  execution test

E.g. at -O0:

(en15.0)        999.E-03      expected:           1.E+00
(en15.0)          9.E+00      expected:          10.E+00
(en15.0)         99.E+00      expected:         100.E+00
(en15.0)        999.E+00      expected:           1.E+03
(en15.0)          9.E+00      expected:          10.E+00
(en15.0)          9.E+00      expected:          10.E+00
(en15.0)         99.E+00      expected:         100.E+00
(en15.0)         99.E+00      expected:         100.E+00
(en15.0)        999.E+00      expected:           1.E+03
(en15.0)        999.E+00      expected:           1.E+03
(en15.0)          9.E+03      expected:          10.E+03
(en15.0)          9.E+03      expected:          10.E+03
(en15.1)         9.9E+03      expected:         10.0E+03
(en15.2)        9.99E+03      expected:        10.00E+03
(en15.3)       9.999E+03      expected:       10.000E+03
(en15.1)         9.4E+00      expected:          9.5E+00
(en15.1)        99.9E-03      expected:        100.0E-03
(en15.1)         9.9E-03      expected:         10.0E-03
(en15.1)       999.9E-06      expected:          1.0E-03
(en15.0)       -999.E-03      expected:          -1.E+00
(en15.0)         -9.E+00      expected:         -10.E+00
(en15.0)        -99.E+00      expected:        -100.E+00
(en15.0)       -999.E+00      expected:          -1.E+03
(en15.0)         -9.E+00      expected:         -10.E+00
(en15.0)         -9.E+00      expected:         -10.E+00
(en15.0)        -99.E+00      expected:        -100.E+00
(en15.0)        -99.E+00      expected:        -100.E+00
(en15.0)       -999.E+00      expected:          -1.E+03
(en15.0)       -999.E+00      expected:          -1.E+03
(en15.0)         -9.E+03      expected:         -10.E+03
(en15.0)         -9.E+03      expected:         -10.E+03
(en15.1)        -9.9E+03      expected:        -10.0E+03
(en15.2)       -9.99E+03      expected:       -10.00E+03
(en15.3)      -9.999E+03      expected:      -10.000E+03
(en15.1)        -9.4E+00      expected:         -9.5E+00
(en15.1)       -99.9E-03      expected:       -100.0E-03
(en15.1)        -9.9E-03      expected:        -10.0E-03
(en15.1)      -999.9E-06      expected:         -1.0E-03
(en15.1)       987.3E+03      expected:        987.4E+03
(en15.2)       98.73E+03      expected:        98.74E+03
(en15.3)       9.873E+03      expected:        9.874E+03
(en15.1)        93.7E-03      expected:         93.8E-03
(en15.2)       46.87E-03      expected:        46.88E-03
(en15.3)      23.437E-03      expected:       23.438E-03
(en15.6)    2.929687E-03      expected:     2.929688E-03
(en15.1)      -987.3E+03      expected:       -987.4E+03
(en15.2)      -98.73E+03      expected:       -98.74E+03
(en15.3)      -9.873E+03      expected:       -9.874E+03
(en15.1)       -93.7E-03      expected:        -93.8E-03
(en15.2)      -46.87E-03      expected:       -46.88E-03
(en15.3)     -23.437E-03      expected:      -23.438E-03
(en15.6)   -2.929687E-03      expected:    -2.929688E-03

Program aborted. Backtrace:
#0  0xB5C343F6
#1  0xB5C35D66
#2  0xB5CF6223
#3  0x8051C27 in MAIN__ at fmt_en.f90:?

  Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
What is the output of

write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905
end

? If it is 9.4, it means that your snprintf is not rounding to nearest but to
zero.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> What is the output of
>
> write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905
> end
>
> ? If it is 9.4, it means that your snprintf is not rounding to nearest but to
> zero.

No, that's not it: I get

        9.5E+00

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Could your repeat the test for

write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_8
end

write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_10
end

and

write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_16
end

?

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Could your repeat the test for
>
> write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_8
> end

        9.5E+00

> write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_10
> end

        9.5E+00

> write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_16
> end

        9.4E+00

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_16
> > end
>
>         9.4E+00

So the test fails due to a bug in the rounding of real(16) in your lib. Do you
have any idea about how the tests for real(16) can be skipped on Solaris 9/x86?

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> > write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.49999905_16
>> > end
>>
>>         9.4E+00
>
> So the test fails due to a bug in the rounding of real(16) in your lib. Do you
> have any idea about how the tests for real(16) can be skipped on Solaris 9/x86?

I'm not sure that's the problem: AFAICS snprintf is only used by
io/write_float.def (output_float:734) to print the exponent, the rest is
handled by quadmath_snprintf.

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> I'm not sure that's the problem: AFAICS snprintf is only used by
> io/write_float.def (output_float:734) to print the exponent, the rest is
> handled by quadmath_snprintf.

The failing tests assume round to nearest. AFAICT quadmath_snprintf round to
zero on solaris.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Rainer,

can you test the following patch?

--- _clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-04
17:51:04.000000000 +0100
+++ work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-18 18:08:22.000000000
+0100
@@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ contains
           else if (i == 3) then
             write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(3))
           else if (i == 4) then
+            ! skip if real(16) are not rounded to nearest (Solaris 9/x86)
+            write(s, '(F3.1)') real(9.49999905,kind=j(4))
+            if (s /= '9.5') exit
             write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(4))
           end if
           n_tst = n_tst + 1

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #21)
> > We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.
> 
> What I don't see is how to xfail only some tests for real(16). Anyway,
> Rainer could open a new PR for the solaris issue and close this one as FIXED?

What we should do is break the test case into two test cases one for quad16 and
the other for the rest.  Then we XFAIL the quad16 one for solaris.  I think we
also need a new PR that is platform specific.  There may be some configury
magic that needs to be done for Solaris to work correctly.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Rainer,
>
> can you test the following patch?
>
> --- _clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-04
> 17:51:04.000000000 +0100
> +++ work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-18 18:08:22.000000000
> +0100
> @@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ contains
>            else if (i == 3) then
>              write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(3))
>            else if (i == 4) then
> +            ! skip if real(16) are not rounded to nearest (Solaris 9/x86)
> +            write(s, '(F3.1)') real(9.49999905,kind=j(4))
> +            if (s /= '9.5') exit
>              write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(4))
>            end if
>            n_tst = n_tst + 1

This passes on both i386-pc-solaris2.9 and i386-pc-solaris2.11.

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #21)
>> > We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.
>> 
>> What I don't see is how to xfail only some tests for real(16). Anyway,
>> Rainer could open a new PR for the solaris issue and close this one as FIXED?
>
> What we should do is break the test case into two test cases one for quad16 and
> the other for the rest.  Then we XFAIL the quad16 one for solaris.  I think we

Agreed, that's better than silently exiting a test in certain
conditions, making it seem that it works while it actually doesn't.

> also need a new PR that is platform specific.  There may be some configury
> magic that needs to be done for Solaris to work correctly.

I've now filed PR fortran/60582.

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > What we should do is break the test case into two test cases one for quad16 and
> > the other for the rest.  Then we XFAIL the quad16 one for solaris.  I think we
>
> Agreed, that's better than silently exiting a test in certain
> conditions, making it seem that it works while it actually doesn't.

For the later remark, this can be handled with something such as the following
patch:

--- fmt_en_2.f90    2014-03-04 17:51:04.000000000 +0100
+++ fmt_en_3.f90    2014-03-20 11:52:51.000000000 +0100
@@ -2,8 +2,39 @@
 ! PR60128 Invalid outputs with EN descriptors
 ! Test case provided by Walt Brainerd.
 program pr60128
-implicit none
+use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
+    implicit none
+    integer, parameter :: j(size(real_kinds)+4)=[REAL_KINDS, [4, 4, 4, 4]]
+    logical :: l_skip(4) = .false.
+    integer :: i
     integer :: n_tst = 0, n_cnt = 0
+    character(len=20) :: s
+
+!   Check that the default rounding mode is to nearest and to even on tie.
+    do i=1,size(real_kinds)
+      if (i == 1) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(1)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(1)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(1)), real(8.5,kind=j(1))
+      else if (i == 2) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(2)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(2)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(2)), real(8.5,kind=j(2))
+      else if (i == 3) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(3)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(3)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(3)), real(8.5,kind=j(3))
+      else if (i == 4) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(4)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(4)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(4)), real(8.5,kind=j(4))
+      end if
+      if (s /= '-9.5 9.5 10.  8.') then
+        l_skip(i) = .true.
+        print "('real(',i0,') are not rounded to nearest')", j(i)
+      end if
+    end do
+        

 ! Original test.
     call checkfmt("(en15.2)", -.44444,    "    -444.44E-03")
@@ -109,18 +140,18 @@ implicit none

     print *, n_tst, n_cnt
     if (n_cnt /= 0) call abort
+    if (all(.not. l_skip)) print *, "no test skipped"

 contains
     subroutine checkfmt(fmt, x, cmp)
         use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
         implicit none
-        integer, parameter :: j(size(real_kinds)+4)=[REAL_KINDS, [4, 4, 4, 4]]
         integer :: i
         character(len=*), intent(in) :: fmt
         real, intent(in) :: x
         character(len=*), intent(in) :: cmp
-        character(len=20) :: s
         do i=1,size(real_kinds)
+          if (l_skip(i)) cycle
           if (i == 1) then
             write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(1))
           else if (i == 2) then
@@ -139,3 +170,4 @@ contains

     end subroutine
 end program
+! { dg-output "no test skipped" { xfail i?86-*-solaris2.9* } }

Splitting the test along the real kinds is difficult to do, as some platforms
don't have real(10) (e.g., powerpc). If the test has to be split, I'ld prefer
to split it along the line 'wrong outputs' (comment 0 and 6)/ 'rounding tests'
(those failing on solaris).

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> > What we should do is break the test case into two test cases one for
>> > quad16 and
>> > the other for the rest.  Then we XFAIL the quad16 one for solaris.  I
>> > think we
>>
>> Agreed, that's better than silently exiting a test in certain
>> conditions, making it seem that it works while it actually doesn't.
>
> For the later remark, this can be handled with something such as the following
> patch:
[...]

Works for me, although in the XFAIL case the output in gfortran.sum
looks a bit strange:

XFAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0  output pattern test, is real(16) are not
rou
nded to nearest
, should match no test skipped

I'd try to keep it on a single line.  Now the test is ok on
i386-pc-solaris2.9 (XFAILs as expected) and i386-pc-solaris2.11
(everything PASSes).

> Splitting the test along the real kinds is difficult to do, as some platforms
> don't have real(10) (e.g., powerpc). If the test has to be split, I'ld prefer
> to split it along the line 'wrong outputs' (comment 0 and 6)/ 'rounding tests'
> (those failing on solaris).

That's clearly up to the Fortran maintainers to decide.

Thanks.
        Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Is the following patch better?

--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-08
10:02:08.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-20 16:34:03.000000000 +0100
@@ -2,8 +2,41 @@
 ! PR60128 Invalid outputs with EN descriptors
 ! Test case provided by Walt Brainerd.
 program pr60128
-implicit none
+use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
+    implicit none
+    integer, parameter :: j(size(real_kinds)+4)=[REAL_KINDS, [4, 4, 4, 4]]
+    logical :: l_skip(4) = .false.
+    integer :: i
     integer :: n_tst = 0, n_cnt = 0
+    character(len=20) :: s
+
+    open (unit = 10, file = 'fmt_en.res')
+!   Check that the default rounding mode is to nearest and to even on tie.
+    do i=1,size(real_kinds)
+      if (i == 1) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(1)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(1)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(1)), real(8.5,kind=j(1))
+      else if (i == 2) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(2)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(2)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(2)), real(8.5,kind=j(2))
+      else if (i == 3) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(3)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(3)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(3)), real(8.5,kind=j(3))
+      else if (i == 4) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(4)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(4)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(4)), real(8.5,kind=j(4))
+      end if
+      if (s /= '-9.5 9.5 10.  8.') then
+        l_skip(i) = .true.
+        print "('Unsupported rounding for real(',i0,')')", j(i)
+        write (10, "('Unsupported rounding for real(',i0,')')") j(i)
+      end if
+    end do
+        

 ! Original test.
     call checkfmt("(en15.2)", -.44444,    "    -444.44E-03")
@@ -112,15 +145,13 @@ implicit none

 contains
     subroutine checkfmt(fmt, x, cmp)
-        use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
         implicit none
-        integer, parameter :: j(size(real_kinds)+4)=[REAL_KINDS, [4, 4, 4, 4]]
         integer :: i
         character(len=*), intent(in) :: fmt
         real, intent(in) :: x
         character(len=*), intent(in) :: cmp
-        character(len=20) :: s
         do i=1,size(real_kinds)
+          if (l_skip(i)) cycle
           if (i == 1) then
             write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(1))
           else if (i == 2) then
@@ -139,3 +170,5 @@ contains

     end subroutine
 end program
+! { dg-final { scan-file-not fmt_en.res "Unsupported rounding" { xfail
i?86-*-solaris2.9* } } }
+! { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } }

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Is the following patch better?

It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.

Thanks.
        Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.

???

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.
>
> ???

I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
files.  Seeing the Unsupported rounding entries on Solaris 11 (any
platform without the rounding issue actually) seemed strange/backwards
at first (double negation) until I understood how it's done.

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
> files.  Seeing the Unsupported rounding entries on Solaris 11 (any
> platform without the rounding issue actually) seemed strange/backwards
> at first (double negation) until I understood how it's done.

I agree that direct logic is better than double negation. With the following
patch

--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-08
10:02:08.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90    2014-03-20 18:26:49.000000000 +0100
@@ -2,8 +2,40 @@
 ! PR60128 Invalid outputs with EN descriptors
 ! Test case provided by Walt Brainerd.
 program pr60128
-implicit none
+use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
+    implicit none
+    integer, parameter :: j(size(real_kinds)+4)=[REAL_KINDS, [4, 4, 4, 4]]
+    logical :: l_skip(4) = .false.
+    integer :: i
     integer :: n_tst = 0, n_cnt = 0
+    character(len=20) :: s
+
+    open (unit = 10, file = 'fmt_en.res')
+!   Check that the default rounding mode is to nearest and to even on tie.
+    do i=1,size(real_kinds)
+      if (i == 1) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(1)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(1)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(1)), real(8.5,kind=j(1))
+      else if (i == 2) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(2)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(2)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(2)), real(8.5,kind=j(2))
+      else if (i == 3) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(3)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(3)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(3)), real(8.5,kind=j(3))
+      else if (i == 4) then
+        write(s, '(2F4.1,2F4.0)') real(-9.49999905,kind=j(4)), &
+                                  real(9.49999905,kind=j(4)),  &
+                                  real(9.5,kind=j(4)), real(8.5,kind=j(4))
+      end if
+      if (s /= '-9.5 9.5 10.  8.') then
+        l_skip(i) = .true.
+        print "('Unsupported rounding for real(',i0,')')", j(i)
+      end if
+    end do
+        

 ! Original test.
     call checkfmt("(en15.2)", -.44444,    "    -444.44E-03")
@@ -109,18 +141,18 @@ implicit none

     !print *, n_tst, n_cnt
     if (n_cnt /= 0) call abort
+    if (all(.not. l_skip)) write (10, *) "All kinds rounded to nearest"
+    close (10)

 contains
     subroutine checkfmt(fmt, x, cmp)
-        use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
         implicit none
-        integer, parameter :: j(size(real_kinds)+4)=[REAL_KINDS, [4, 4, 4, 4]]
         integer :: i
         character(len=*), intent(in) :: fmt
         real, intent(in) :: x
         character(len=*), intent(in) :: cmp
-        character(len=20) :: s
         do i=1,size(real_kinds)
+          if (l_skip(i)) cycle
           if (i == 1) then
             write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(1))
           else if (i == 2) then
@@ -139,3 +171,5 @@ contains

     end subroutine
 end program
+! { dg-final { scan-file fmt_en.res "All kinds rounded to nearest" { xfail
i?86-*-solaris2.9* } } }
+! { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } }

the gfortran.sum contains

...
PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0   scan-file All kinds rounded to nearest
...

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
>> files.  Seeing the Unsupported rounding entries on Solaris 11 (any
>> platform without the rounding issue actually) seemed strange/backwards
>> at first (double negation) until I understood how it's done.
>
> I agree that direct logic is better than double negation. With the following
> patch
[...]
> the gfortran.sum contains
>
> ...
> PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0   scan-file All kinds rounded to nearest
> ...

Even better.  Tested again on i386-pc-solaris2.9 and i386-pc-solaris2.11.

Thanks.
        Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #36 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks Good!  I will commit the change in Comment #34 soon.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Mar 24 00:29:43 2014
New Revision: 208780

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-23  Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>

    PR libfortran/60128
    * gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90: Update test. XFAIL for
    i?86-*-solaris2.9*.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #38 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 tests fail on hppa*-*-hpux11* (4.8 and 4.9):

(en15.0)          9.E+03      expected:          10.E+03
(en15.0)          9.E+03      expected:          10.E+03
(en15.1)         9.9E+03      expected:         10.0E+03
(en15.1)         9.9E+03      expected:         10.0E+03
(en15.0)         -9.E+03      expected:         -10.E+03
(en15.0)         -9.E+03      expected:         -10.E+03
(en15.1)        -9.9E+03      expected:        -10.0E+03
(en15.1)        -9.9E+03      expected:        -10.0E+03
(en15.1)       987.3E+03      expected:        987.4E+03
(en15.1)       987.3E+03      expected:        987.4E+03
(en15.1)       987.7E+03      expected:        987.6E+03
(en15.2)       98.77E+03      expected:        98.76E+03
(en15.2)       98.77E+03      expected:        98.76E+03
(en15.2)       98.77E+03      expected:        98.76E+03
(en15.3)       9.877E+03      expected:        9.876E+03
(en15.1)        31.3E-03      expected:         31.2E-03
(en15.2)       15.63E-03      expected:        15.62E-03
(en15.3)       7.813E-03      expected:        7.812E-03
(en15.3)     976.563E-06      expected:      976.562E-06
(en15.1)      -987.3E+03      expected:       -987.4E+03
(en15.1)      -987.3E+03      expected:       -987.4E+03
(en15.1)      -987.7E+03      expected:       -987.6E+03
(en15.2)      -98.77E+03      expected:       -98.76E+03
(en15.2)      -98.77E+03      expected:       -98.76E+03
(en15.2)      -98.77E+03      expected:       -98.76E+03
(en15.3)      -9.877E+03      expected:       -9.876E+03
(en15.1)       -31.3E-03      expected:        -31.2E-03
(en15.2)      -15.63E-03      expected:       -15.62E-03
(en15.3)      -7.813E-03      expected:       -7.812E-03
(en15.3)    -976.563E-06      expected:     -976.562E-06

This is with quad16.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 tests fail on hppa*-*-hpux11* (4.8 and 4.9):
> ...

After r208780 (for 4.9, not backported yet to 4.8)?

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #40 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Mar-14, at 11:14 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot  
> ens.fr> ---
>> gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 tests fail on hppa*-*-hpux11* (4.8 and 4.9):
>> ...
>
> After r208780 (for 4.9, not backported yet to 4.8)?


I'll know tomorrow whether update has helped.

Dave
--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #41 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Mar-14, at 11:14 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:

> After r208780 (for 4.9, not backported yet to 4.8)?

Yes, it still fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.  Maybe list is shorter:

Unsupported rounding for real(16)
(en15.0)          9.E+03      expected:          10.E+03
(en15.0)          9.E+03      expected:          10.E+03
(en15.1)         9.9E+03      expected:         10.0E+03
(en15.1)         9.9E+03      expected:         10.0E+03
(en15.0)         -9.E+03      expected:         -10.E+03
(en15.0)         -9.E+03      expected:         -10.E+03
(en15.1)        -9.9E+03      expected:        -10.0E+03
(en15.1)        -9.9E+03      expected:        -10.0E+03
(en15.1)       987.3E+03      expected:        987.4E+03
(en15.1)       987.3E+03      expected:        987.4E+03
(en15.2)       98.77E+03      expected:        98.76E+03
(en15.2)       98.77E+03      expected:        98.76E+03
(en15.1)      -987.3E+03      expected:       -987.4E+03
(en15.1)      -987.3E+03      expected:       -987.4E+03
(en15.2)      -98.77E+03      expected:       -98.76E+03
(en15.2)      -98.77E+03      expected:       -98.76E+03

Dave
--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #42 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > After r208780 (for 4.9, not backported yet to 4.8)?
>
> Yes, it still fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.  Maybe list is shorter:
>
> Unsupported rounding for real(16)
> ...

So the line

! { dg-final { scan-file fmt_en.res "All kinds rounded to nearest" { xfail
i?86-*-solaris2.9* } } }

should be replaced with

! { dg-final { scan-file fmt_en.res "All kinds rounded to nearest" { xfail {
i?86-*-solaris2.9* hppa*-*-hpux11* } } } }

However I don't understand why you get the outputs, the corresponding tests are
supposed to be skipped if the rounding is not to nearest as detected.

Can you uncomment the line

    !print *, n_tst, n_cnt

and post the corresponding output?

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #43 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 8:51 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Can you uncomment the line
>
>      !print *, n_tst, n_cnt
>
> and post the corresponding output?
(en15.2) -98.77E+03      expected:       -98.76E+03
          190          16

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #44 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
What is the output of

  use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
  print *, REAL_KINDS
end

?

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #45 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 11:09 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> What is the output of
>
>    use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
>    print *, REAL_KINDS
> end
>
> ?
            4 8          16

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #46 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
AFAICT on hppa*-*-hpux11* the E format does not round to nearest for tie. What
is the output of the following test

#include "stdio.h"
int main() {
    printf("%.1e %.1e\n", 9950.0, 9750.0);
    return 0;
}

? On x86_64-apple-darwin13, I get '1.0e+04 9.8e+03'.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #48 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > AFAICT on hppa*-*-hpux11* the E format does not round to nearest for tie. What
> > is the output of the following test
> >
> > ...
> >
> > ? On x86_64-apple-darwin13, I get '1.0e+04 9.8e+03'.
> You are correct:
> 9.9e+03 9.7e+03

OK! Unless someone beats me, I'll split the test in two, one for the main
issue, the other one for the round to even on tie.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #49 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 2:07 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #48 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>>> AFAICT on hppa*-*-hpux11* the E format does not round to nearest for tie. What
>>> is the output of the following test
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ? On x86_64-apple-darwin13, I get '1.0e+04 9.8e+03'.
>> You are correct:
>> 9.9e+03 9.7e+03
> OK! Unless someone beats me, I'll split the test in two, one for the main
> issue, the other one for the round to even on tie.

It looks like hppa rounds toward zero on tie.  I couldn't find any 
documentation on the
subject.  For ia64, HP states that the rounding is according to C99.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #50 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 3:43 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> It looks like hppa rounds toward zero on tie.

This is what the HP-UX Floating-Point Guide says:

If two representable values are equally close to
the true value, choose the one whose least significant
bit is 0.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #51 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> This is what the HP-UX Floating-Point Guide says:
>
> If two representable values are equally close to
> the true value, choose the one whose least significant
> bit is 0.

This is round to even on tie, isn't it?

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #52 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/26/2014 4:20 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #51 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
>> This is what the HP-UX Floating-Point Guide says:
>>
>> If two representable values are equally close to
>> the true value, choose the one whose least significant
>> bit is 0.
> This is round to even on tie, isn't it?
I'm not sure. The hex representations for 9900.0 (9.9e+3) and 10000.0 
(1.0e+4)
are 40c3560000000000 and 40c3880000000000, respectively.  It seems both 
have a
zero least significant bit.  So, something more is needed to break tie 
in this case.

Dave

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #53 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Dave, Rainer,

Could you test the following code?


[karma] f90/bug% cat fmt_en_1.f90
! { dg-do run }
! PR60128 Invalid outputs with EN descriptors
! Test case provided by Walt Brainerd.
program pr60128
use ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
    implicit none
    integer, parameter :: j(size(real_kinds)+4)=[REAL_KINDS, [4, 4, 4, 4]]
    logical :: l_skip(4) = .false.
    integer :: i
    integer :: n_tst = 0, n_cnt = 0
    character(len=20) :: s

    open (unit = 10, file = 'fmt_en.res')
!   Check that the default rounding mode is to nearest and to even on tie.
    do i=1,size(real_kinds)
      if (i == 1) then
        write(s, '(2(1PE9.1))') real(9950.0,kind=j(1)), &
                                real(9750.0,kind=j(1))
      else if (i == 2) then
        write(s, '(2(1PE9.1))') real(9950.0,kind=j(2)), &
                                real(9750.0,kind=j(2))
      else if (i == 3) then
        write(s, '(2(1PE9.1))') real(9950.0,kind=j(3)), &
                                real(9750.0,kind=j(3))
      else if (i == 4) then
        write(s, '(2(1PE9.1))') real(9950.0,kind=j(4)), &
                                real(9750.0,kind=j(4))
      end if
      if (s /= '  1.0E+04  9.8E+03') then
        l_skip(i) = .true.
        print "('Unsupported rounding for real(',i0,')')", j(i)
        write (10, "('Unsupported rounding for real(',i0,')')") j(i)
      end if
    end do

    call checkfmt("(en15.0)", 9500.0,     "        10.E+03")
    call checkfmt("(en15.1)", 9950.0,     "       10.0E+03")
    call checkfmt("(en15.0)", -9500.0,     "       -10.E+03")
    call checkfmt("(en15.1)", -9950.0,     "      -10.0E+03")
    call checkfmt("(en15.1)", 987350.,     "      987.4E+03")
    call checkfmt("(en15.2)", 98765.,      "      98.76E+03")
    call checkfmt("(en15.1)", -987350.,     "     -987.4E+03")
    call checkfmt("(en15.2)", -98765.,      "     -98.76E+03")

    print *, n_tst, n_cnt
    if (n_cnt /= 0) call abort

contains
    subroutine checkfmt(fmt, x, cmp)
        implicit none
        integer :: i
        character(len=*), intent(in) :: fmt
        real, intent(in) :: x
        character(len=*), intent(in) :: cmp
        do i=1,size(real_kinds)
          if (l_skip(i)) cycle
          if (i == 1) then
            write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(1))
          else if (i == 2) then
            write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(2))
          else if (i == 3) then
            write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(3))
          else if (i == 4) then
            write(s, fmt) real(x,kind=j(4))
          end if
          n_tst = n_tst + 1
          if (s /= cmp) then
             print "(a,1x,a,' expected: ',1x,a)", fmt, s, cmp
             n_cnt = n_cnt + 1
           end if
        end do

    end subroutine
end program
! { dg-final { scan-file-not fmt_en.res "Unsupported rounding" { xfail {
i?86-*-solaris2.9* hppa*-*-hpux11* } } } }
! { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } }

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #54 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #53 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Dave, Rainer,
>
> Could you test the following code?

Sure: passes on both i386-pc-solaris2.{9,10} with XFAILs on Solaris 9.

> ! { dg-final { scan-file-not fmt_en.res "Unsupported rounding" { xfail {
> i?86-*-solaris2.9* hppa*-*-hpux11* } } } }
> ! { dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } }

Somehow long lines are broken if you put code inline.  Perhaps better
attach it to the PR?

Thanks.
        Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #55 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/27/2014 11:00 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Could you test the following code?
Here is output:

Unsupported rounding for real(4)
Unsupported rounding for real(8)
(en15.2)       98.77E+03      expected:        98.76E+03
(en15.2)      -98.77E+03      expected:       -98.76E+03
            8           2

Program aborted. Backtrace:
** Something went wrong while running addr2line. **
** Falling back to a simpler backtrace scheme. **
#1  c00000000033b5bf
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en_1.f90  -O0  execution test
XPASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en_1.f90  -O0   scan-file-not Unsupported rounding

So, probably abort shouldn't be called when rounding isn't supported.

I would change "hpux11*" to "hpux*".

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #56 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> So, probably abort shouldn't be called when rounding isn't supported.

The problem is that the rounding to even on tie seems supported by hpux, but
for
98765.0_16 or -98765.0_16: 6 successes out of 8 tests. Could you post the
output of

print '(3PE10.3)', 987350._4
print '(3PE10.3)', 987350._8
print '(3PE10.3)', 987350._16
print '(2PE10.3)', 98765.0_4
print '(2PE10.3)', 98765.0_8
print '(2PE10.3)', 98765.0_16
end

My problem is to know if this is coming from the default printing libs or from
the EN format in libfortran.

On *-*-darwin* I get

 987.4E+03
 987.4E+03
 987.4E+03
 98.76E+03
 98.76E+03
 98.76E+03

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #57 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Your results on Darwin match gfortran and ifort on x86-64.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #58 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 27-Mar-14, at 6:31 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #56 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot  
> ens.fr> ---
>> So, probably abort shouldn't be called when rounding isn't supported.
>
> The problem is that the rounding to even on tie seems supported by  
> hpux, but
> for
> 98765.0_16 or -98765.0_16: 6 successes out of 8 tests. Could you  
> post the
> output of
>
> print '(3PE10.3)', 987350._4
> print '(3PE10.3)', 987350._8
> print '(3PE10.3)', 987350._16
> print '(2PE10.3)', 98765.0_4
> print '(2PE10.3)', 98765.0_8
> print '(2PE10.3)', 98765.0_16
> end
>
> My problem is to know if this is coming from the default printing  
> libs or from
> the EN format in libfortran.
>
> On *-*-darwin* I get
>
> 987.4E+03
> 987.4E+03
> 987.4E+03
> 98.76E+03
> 98.76E+03
> 98.76E+03


Results are on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11:

  987.3E+03
  987.3E+03
  987.4E+03
  98.77E+03
  98.77E+03
  98.77E+03

--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #59 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Created attachment 32485
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32485&action=edit
Patch for gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90

Could you test the attached patch?

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #60 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 29-Mar-14, at 12:12 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:

> Could you test the attached patch?

Test no longer fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11:

Unsupported rounding for real(4)
Unsupported rounding for real(8)
Unsupported rounding for real(16)
            0           0           0
PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0  execution test
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0   scan-file All kinds rounded to  
nearest

--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #61 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Test no longer fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11:
>
> Unsupported rounding for real(4)
> Unsupported rounding for real(8)
> Unsupported rounding for real(16)
>            0           0           0
> PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0  execution test
> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0   scan-file All kinds rounded to nearest

Actually all the tests are skipped. I have forgotten to remove the line

          if (l_skip(i)) cycle

Could you rerun the test without this line? You should get something such as

285 0 30

Sorry for the mistake!-(

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #62 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 29-Mar-14, at 7:30 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #61 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot  
> ens.fr> ---
>> Test no longer fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11:
>>
>> Unsupported rounding for real(4)
>> Unsupported rounding for real(8)
>> Unsupported rounding for real(16)
>>           0           0           0
>> PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0  execution test
>> XFAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -O0   scan-file All kinds rounded to  
>> nearest
>
> Actually all the tests are skipped. I have forgotten to remove the  
> line
>
>          if (l_skip(i)) cycle
>
> Could you rerun the test without this line? You should get something  
> such as
>
> 285 0 30


Yes:
Unsupported rounding for real(4)
Unsupported rounding for real(8)
Unsupported rounding for real(16)
          285           0          30

--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

--- Comment #63 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
On i386-pc-solaris2.9, I get the same PASSes and XFAILs as before:

Unsupported rounding for real(16)
         380           0          52
PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -Os  execution test
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90  -Os   scan-file All kinds rounded to nearest

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong  |[4.8 Regression] Wrong
                   |ouput using en edit         |ouput using en edit
                   |descriptor                  |descriptor

--- Comment #64 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Author:    dominiq
Date: Tue Apr 1 09:21:53 2014
New Revision: 208979

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208979&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-01  Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>

    libfortran/60128
    * gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90: Skip unsupported rounding tests.
    XFAIL for i?86-*-solaris2.9* and hppa*-*-hpux*.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

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

--- Comment #65 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Apr  4 06:43:56 2014
New Revision: 209070

2014-04-01  Dominique d'Humieres  <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>

        PR libfortran/60128
        * gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90: Skip unsupported rounding tests.
        XFAIL for i?86-*-solaris2.9* and hppa*-*-hpux*.


Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90