From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id B151B3850417; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 21:37:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B151B3850417
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1600033074;
 bh=VwnOWbQLtYVg0qLXrb5tgRsiG8dob39kVPmgEqAjX30=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=j4SHMz+b3ohTrVt3zuoEwDcBrGEYmZd2CK/2sAcgv4II65UnWayxxdPLRG3eZ+9ps
 KBC77meDlBjZzFDSBI8tuZL8OTRzO3cFQBzqD8q1PTMLjWm96vwcvF4FlcnSGgfOPS
 9EpnkzPvbg+kBkG/QY1coFoLs6pCA870ad0+CUCU=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/96983] [11 regression] ICE compiling
 gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 starting with r11-3042
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 21:37:54 +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: <bug-96983-4-lligLzf7wq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96983-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96983-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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 <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 21:37:54 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96983

--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #14)
>> > --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>> > This may lead to a total mess, and I am unable to test it, but can you=
 try:
>>=20
>> I just ran bootstraps on both sparc-sun-solaris2.11 and
>> i386-pc-solaris2.11.  x86 results are unchanged, but sparc is completely
>> miserable:
>
> OK, thanks.  Scrap the patch from comment#13.  Let's try using long double
> when TYPE_PRECISION (long_double_type_node) is big enough for the convers=
ion:
[...]
> This should have no effect on x86.
>
> I may work on SPARC; could you please test for me?

It did indeed: both sparc-sun-solaris2.11 and i386-pc-solaris2.11
bootstraps completed; the failures are gone and no regressions occured.

Thanks.

Btw., there's a Solaris/SPARC system in the GCC compile farm (gcc211),
so you can test patches yourself if you like.  It took me quite some
time to do the testing myself this time because the regular weekly tests
were still running on my system.=