--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-21 02:23
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-21 02:23
---
Subject: Bug 35036
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 21 02:22:45 2008
New Revision: 132511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132511
Log:
2008-02-20 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-21 02:21
---
Subject: Bug 35036
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 21 02:20:27 2008
New Revision: 132510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132510
Log:
2008-02-20 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 00:06
---
Created an attachment (id=15082)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15082&action=view)
Revised test case
This test case is updated with additional tests.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-02 19:36
---
Created an attachment (id=15081)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15081&action=view)
Proposed patch
This patch provides an error for precision (number of digits left of decimal
point) specifie
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-02 11:13 ---
I agree that "If -d < k <= 0" is confusing when you don't specify k. However
you can remove the k and get "if -d<0", aka "if 0http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35036
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-02 08:28
---
Here is a different view on this; from the standard:
For an internal value that is neither an IEEE infinity nor a NaN, the form of
the output field for a scale factor of zero is:
[ ± ] [0].x1 x2 . . . xd
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 12:46 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Sun f95 gives:
> Error 1078: scale factor out of range
> ifort gives:
>
g95 and openf95 give the same result as ifort:
While NAG f95 follows sunf95 by giving the run-
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 06:27
---
Sun f95 gives:
** FORTRAN RUN-TIME SYSTEM **
Error 1078: scale factor out of range
Location: the WRITE statement at line 2 of "pr35036.f"
Unit: *
File: standard output
Aborted
ifort gives:
$ i
--- Comment #8 from furue at hawaii dot edu 2008-01-31 06:16 ---
Subject: Re: illegal E format descriptor produces wrong
output
| > I may be missing something, but "-d < k <= 0" doesn't hold
| > when d = 0 and k = 0. Notice the inequality "<". So, when k = 0,
| > how should we read
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 05:45
---
I will have to study the Standard some more as well. Off the top of my head I
have a vague recollection of working a bug like this before and we fixed it. I
will check into this.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 04:09 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: illegal E format descriptor produces wrong
> output
>
> | There is no restriction in F95 that d must be positive in Ew.d.
> | In 10.6.5.1, it clearly states that k = 0 at the
--- Comment #5 from furue at hawaii dot edu 2008-01-31 02:45 ---
Subject: Re: illegal E format descriptor produces wrong
output
| There is no restriction in F95 that d must be positive in Ew.d.
| In 10.6.5.1, it clearly states that k = 0 at the beginning of
| execution of an input/ou
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 02:24 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re: illegal E format descriptor produces wrong
> output
>
> Hi,
>
> | --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 01:46
> ---
> | (In reply to comment #0
--- Comment #3 from furue at hawaii dot edu 2008-01-31 02:00 ---
Subject: Re: illegal E format descriptor produces wrong
output
Hi,
| --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 01:46
---
| (In reply to comment #0)
| > "E8.0" is an illegal format descriptor,
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 01:46 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> "E8.0" is an illegal format descriptor,
Can you cite from the Fortran 95 standard why this is illegal?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35036
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 01:29 ---
Hmm, gfortran produces something slightly different:
[dhcp-10-98-10-23:~] apinski% ~/local-gcc/bin/gfortran t.f -pedantic
[dhcp-10-98-10-23:~] apinski% ./a.out
0.E+01
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
17 matches
Mail list logo
