On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:05:30PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> --- a/libgfortran/runtime/stop.c
> +++ b/libgfortran/runtime/stop.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,37 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively.
> If not, see
> #endif
>
>
> +/* Fortran 2008 demands: If any exception (14) is signaling on that image,
> the
> + processor shall issue a warning indicating which exceptions are signaling;
> + this warning shall be on the unit identified by the named constant
> + ERROR_UNIT (13.8.2.8). In line with other compilers, we do not report
> + inexact - and we optionally ignore underflow, cf. thread starting at
> + http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2013-June/006452.html. */
> +
> +static void
> +report_exception (void)
> +{
> + int set_excepts = get_fpu_except_flags ();
> + if (!set_excepts)
> + return;
I think if you want to mask some exceptions based on
compile_options (and yes, I think it is highly desirable to have
some compile option to disable any printout on STOP with no arguments),
then I think you want to mask them before testing if (!set_excepts),
otherwise if say undeflow is the only reported exception, you'd print
Note: The following floating-point status flag is signalling:
(and no exceptions). So
if (!compile_options.underflow_warning)
set_excepts &= ~GFC_FPE_UNDERFLOW;
if (!set_excepts)
return;
would be IMHO better.
Jakub
