--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-17
18:23 ---
Summary of compilers behaviour on that one:
+ Absoft, Portland, MIPS-Pro, NEC SX and IBM exhibit behaviour similar to
gfortran (generating same RN sequences)
+ Sun, Intel, g95 generate different RN seq
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-16 16:09
---
Switch Severity to enhanacement (although I disagree the basic premise).
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-09-15 03:43 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> >
> > > I agree that the current gfortran's behaviour is standard conforming.
> >
> > Enough said.
> >
> > > But it is counter intuitive.
> >
> > It is counter
--- Additional Comments From kamaraju at gmail dot com 2005-09-15 02:11
---
Subject: Re: non intuitive behaviour of gfortran
On 15 Sep 2005 00:15:27 -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-0
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 00:15
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> consider the following program
> program random
> implicit none
> real :: x
> call random_seed();
> call random_number(x);
> write(*,*) x
> end program random
>
> When I run thi
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23889
