to:Dr.Dominique d'Humières and Dr.Tobias Burnus from:Mr.Michio Sudo Thankyou for your prompt responses. My research was not enough. I will use the p edit scriptor as it is. Best regards.
----- Original Message ----- >> From: Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> >> To: sudo.mic...@jaea.go.jp >> Cc: GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,fort...@gcc.gnu.org >> Date: 2016-03-10 19:09:33 >> Subject: Re: bug report : gfortran E edit descriptor >> >> > I have an trouble in E edit descriptor of gfortran. >> > This is a example. >> > (source file: test.f95) >> > program test >> > implicit none >> > real a,b >> > a=135.0 >> > b=1737.5 >> > write(*,*)a,b >> > write(*,'(e9.3,a,f7.1)')a,' ',b >> > write(*,'(1pe9.3,a,f7.1)')a,' ',b >> > end >> > (compile) >> > gfortran test.f95 >> > (execute) >> > a.exe >> > (result) >> > 135.000000 1737.50000 >> > 0.135E+03 1737.5 >> > 1.350E+02 17375.0 ( <--- wrong value ) >> > >> > I suppose there are some bugs in the E edit descriptor. >> IIRC >> (1) the P ‘modifier’ applies to all the subsequent numeric descriptors, >> (2) when rP is applied to an F descriptor, the value is ‘multiplied’ by >> 10**r. >> write(*,'(e9.3,a,1pf7.1)')a,' ‘,b >> gives >> 0.135E+03 17375.0 >> and >> write(*,'(1pe9.3,a,e9.3)')a,' ‘,b >> gives >> 1.350E+02 1.738E+03 >> So I think gfortran is right. >> >> > I like Fortran and I wish gfortran of GCC to be better compiler. >> > best regards. >> If you want to contribute, discussion about gfortran should go to >> fort...@gcc.gnu.org and bug should be filed in bugzilla. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dominique >> >>
