https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #12 from B Eggen ---
Thanks for your explanations, and for reminding me of the excellent library etc
by David Bailey. My original quest was to have a fast method to decide for
large integers quickly whether they are perfect squares.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #10 from B Eggen ---
I've been experimenting with the suggested work-around
m = anint(y)
This works for larger numbers, even in quad precision, however, it breaks down
a long way before the integer*16 range is exhausted, consider th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #3 from B Eggen ---
Here is the latest f90 file:
program nint_error
integer :: n, m
integer(kind=16) :: i, j, nint
integer, parameter :: idp=selected_real_kind(9,99)
integer, parameter :: i16=selected_int_kind(38)
real(k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
--- Comment #2 from B Eggen ---
adding the compiler flag -fdefault-integer-8 extends the range somewhat, but I
really require NINT() to work for whole range (up to 2^127-1):
-> ./nint_error.e
i16= 16 170141183460469231731687303715884105727
1 1 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711
B Eggen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bre08 at eggen dot co.uk
--- Comment #1 from
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bre08 at eggen dot co.uk
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 49082
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49082&action=edit
This recreates the error, either the internal compiler error (line 18),
