From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id AEB8B39450F1; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:50:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AEB8B39450F1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1599742221; bh=Tn41YfKi43NoX44j8fegxivAh9/PaiotZF9keXvyuV0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=qOAvAxlQStUXkz0P4HQaEfG2UYV+yP9Dk1QHOk6EfbLz6k/durlQpp9pExltMaisf a4UfsUID/OBC+KwNgSOKl21942i3VMTpl9dgMvB24+2REQmo1ZwJCU6wzdny3s4WJm iNDLH1wGoCRo2tAvQWopQlRsY516EmzfOhi2ro3g= From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/96983] [11 regression] ICE compiling gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 starting with r11-3042 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:50:21 +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: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:50:21 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96983 --- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #9) >> >> 0x67606b build_round_expr >> >> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:408 >> > >> > That's: >> > >> > arg =3D fold_convert (gfc_float128_type_node, arg); >> > >> > Can you find out what gfc_float128_type_node is on SPARC, > >> 408 arg =3D fold_convert (gfc_float128_type_node, arg); >> (gdb) p gfc_float128_type_node >> $2 =3D > > OK. Can you print kind which was determined a few lines before? (gdb) p kind $30 =3D 16 > Also, to find out why gfc_float128_type_node is NULL_TREE, > can you investigate the array gfc_real_kinds? > > On x86, the supported kind values are 4,8,10,16, and 4, 8, 16 on sparc > (gdb) p gfc_real_kinds[3] > $9 =3D {epsilon =3D {{_mpfr_prec =3D 113, _mpfr_sign =3D 1, _mpfr_exp =3D= -111,=20 > _mpfr_d =3D 0x27ee628}}, huge =3D {{_mpfr_prec =3D 113, _mpfr_sign = =3D 1, > _mpfr_exp =3D 16384,=20 > _mpfr_d =3D 0x27ee5e8}}, tiny =3D {{_mpfr_prec =3D 113, _mpfr_sign = =3D 1,=20 > _mpfr_exp =3D -16381, _mpfr_d =3D 0x27ee5c8}}, subnormal =3D {{_mpf= r_prec =3D > 113,=20 > _mpfr_sign =3D 1, _mpfr_exp =3D -16493, _mpfr_d =3D 0x27ee608}}, ki= nd =3D 16, > radix =3D 2,=20 > digits =3D 113, min_exponent =3D -16381, max_exponent =3D 16384, range = =3D 4931, > precision =3D 33,=20 > mode_precision =3D 128, c_float =3D 0, c_double =3D 0, c_long_double = =3D 0, > c_float128 =3D 1} (gdb) p gfc_real_kinds[2] $37 =3D {epsilon =3D {{_mpfr_prec =3D 113, _mpfr_sign =3D 1, _mpfr_exp =3D = -111,=20 _mpfr_d =3D 0x1baf2bc}}, huge =3D {{_mpfr_prec =3D 113, _mpfr_sign = =3D 1,=20 _mpfr_exp =3D 16384, _mpfr_d =3D 0x1b9b31c}}, tiny =3D {{_mpfr_prec = =3D 113,=20 _mpfr_sign =3D 1, _mpfr_exp =3D -16381, _mpfr_d =3D 0x1baf27c}}, subn= ormal =3D {{ _mpfr_prec =3D 113, _mpfr_sign =3D 1, _mpfr_exp =3D -16493,=20 _mpfr_d =3D 0x1baf29c}}, kind =3D 16, radix =3D 2, digits =3D 113,=20 min_exponent =3D -16381, max_exponent =3D 16384, range =3D 4931, precisio= n =3D 33,=20 mode_precision =3D 128, c_float =3D 0, c_double =3D 0, c_long_double =3D = 1,=20 c_float128 =3D 0} > In trans-types.c we have: > > if (gfc_real_kinds[index].c_float128) > gfc_float128_type_node =3D type; > > Look in particular at the value of c_float128. Not set for any of the 3 supported kinds. >> I'd expect that's long double, which is IEEE128 on SPARC. > > So if it is IEEE128, where does the difference from x86 come from? Here's how the types align: kind mode_precision c_long_double c_float128 x86 long double 10 80 1 0 x86 __float128 16 128 0 1 sparc long double 16 128 1 0=