Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ci: add windows workflow #58

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 2, 2020
Merged

Conversation

scivision
Copy link
Member

@scivision scivision commented Dec 31, 2019

It can be advantageous to have distinct workflows on a per-operating system basis,
to quickly see the scope of a failure.

This CI will fail until the quad-precision code is made conditional on a build system test (CMake >= 3.14 check_fortran_source_runs()) to make quad-precision optional in library and tests.
In the library, this can be done via Fortran submodule. In the test, it can be done via preprocessor #ifdef usereal128 or similar introduced via CMake as a result of configure checks

It can be advantageous to have distinct workflows on a per-operating system basis,
to quickly see the scope of a failure
@certik
Copy link
Member

certik commented Dec 31, 2019

Thanks! You can upgrade cmake, or do whatever needs to be done to make all tests pass.

@certik certik mentioned this pull request Dec 31, 2019
@certik
Copy link
Member

certik commented Dec 31, 2019

I am trying to trouble shoot this in #61. Is this a compiler bug?

@scivision
Copy link
Member Author

I think it is a compiler bug it's not uncommon to find such things with rarer configurations like quad precision.

@certik
Copy link
Member

certik commented Jan 1, 2020

I see. Why don't we disable quad precision for now. I think having Windows tests is essential (more important than quad precision). Then we can re-enable quad precision in future PRs on platforms where it works.

@zbeekman zbeekman merged commit 9de9b90 into fortran-lang:master Jan 2, 2020
@certik
Copy link
Member

certik commented Jan 2, 2020

This was merged as part of #61. Thanks @scivision!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants