Guys, it's unproductive to discuss GFortran internals or the nuances of the
standard with an end-user like me ;-)
AFAIK, the implementation is compliant and correct. My angle here was
completely different. The question is whether this aspect of Fortran leads to
confusion and subsequently to dup
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:38:01PM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> > Interesting example.
> >
> > % gfcx -o z a.f90 && ./z
> > -128
> > % gfcx -o z -pedantic a.f90 && ./z
> > a.f90:5:20:
> >
> >5 | data j /-128_int8/
> > |1
> > Error: Integer too big for its kind at (1)
> Interesting example.
>
> % gfcx -o z a.f90 && ./z
> -128
> % gfcx -o z -pedantic a.f90 && ./z
> a.f90:5:20:
>
>5 | data j /-128_int8/
> |1
> Error: Integer too big for its kind at (1). This check can be disabled with
> the option ‘-fno-range-check’
That qualifi
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 09:23:56PM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
>
> This is, for example, legal code (and handled by gfortran as expected):
>
> use iso_fortran_env
> implicit none
> integer(int8) :: j
> data j /-128_int8/
> print *, j
> end
>
Interesting example.
% gfcx -o z a.f90 &&
>> print *, -128_int8
>
> This is a unary minus operator with an operand of 128.
> gfortran does not have negative integers.
To be clear, it’s not gfortran, it’s the standard(s). It’s not exactly true
either, because there is a "signed-int-literal-constant” which is allowed in
some contexts:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 03:44:26PM +0200, Elias Toivanen wrote:
>
> I stumbled upon a Fortran quirk regarding the ranges for integers.
> The standard stipulates that the ranges be symmetric even though
> as we know two's complement signed integers have asymmetrical
> ranges, e.g. int8 kind can var
Hi,
I stumbled upon a Fortran quirk regarding the ranges for integers. The standard
stipulates that the ranges be symmetric even though as we know two's complement
signed integers have asymmetrical ranges, e.g. int8 kind can vary between -128
and 127.
This is sure to cause confusion as for exa
