https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118499
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to kargls from comment #14) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #13) > > (In reply to kargls from comment #12) > > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9) > > > > Question is, what should we permit... > > > > > > > > For 'normal' operations, only unsigned op unsigned is permitted, > > > > so unsigned**unsigned is obviously ok. > > > > > > > > What about (integer|real|complex)**unsigned? > > > > > > > > What about unsigned**integer? > > > > > > > > Since exponentiation is special (and also does not involve > > > > type conversion) my feeling is to allow it all. > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > Agree with the others. Supporting the above is fine. > > > What about allowing unsigned**(real|complex)? The Fortran standard > > > allows integer**(real|complex). > > > > I would vote against this. Mathematically, the result cannot be an > > unsigned. > > As I noted, the standard allows integer**(real|complex). > > % cat a.f90 > program foo > integer u > real x > complex c > x = 1.25 > u = 2 > c = (1.25,3.14) > print *, u**x, u**c > end program > % gfcx -o z -std=f2018 a.f90 && ./z > 2.37841415 (-1.35409331,1.95532227) > > The result is not integer. It literally is the expected > mathematical expression exp((real|complex)*log(unsigned)) Do I understand correctly that the integer argument is promoted to real first? This would be the sort of implicit conversion that is generally excluded from UNSIGNED.
