https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Bug ID: 66311
Summary: [5 Regression] Problems with some integer(16) values
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
Target Milestone: ---
First of all, it's great to support integer(16).
But printing some numbers from range 2^63 to 2^64-1 with this snippet :
program p
print *, 9000000000000000000_16
print *, huge(1_8)
print *, 2_16**63
print *, 10000000000000000000_16
print *, 18446744065119617024_16
print *, 2_16**64 - 1
print *, 2_16**64
print *, 20000000000000000000_16
end
yields a wrong output for gfortran 5.1.1 (on SUSE Linux 13.2, 64 bit)
9000000000000000000
9223372036854775807
-9223372036854775808
-8446744073709551616
-8589934592
-1
18446744073709551616
20000000000000000000
Whereas with gfortran 4.9.0 and 4.8.3 the printed numbers are correct:
9000000000000000000
9223372036854775807
9223372036854775808
10000000000000000000
18446744065119617024
18446744073709551615
18446744073709551616
20000000000000000000
---
Same issue for the corresponding negative range :
program p
print *, -9000000000000000000_16
print *, -huge(1_8)
print *, -(2_16**63)
print *, -10000000000000000000_16
print *, -18446744065119617024_16
print *, -(2_16**64 - 1)
print *, -(2_16**64)
print *, -20000000000000000000_16
end
Result with gfortran 5.1.1 :
-9000000000000000000
-9223372036854775807
9223372036854775808
8446744073709551616
8589934592
1
-18446744073709551616
-20000000000000000000
Result with gfortran 4.9.0 and 4.8.3 :
-9000000000000000000
-9223372036854775807
-9223372036854775808
-10000000000000000000
-18446744065119617024
-18446744073709551615
-18446744073709551616
-20000000000000000000
