--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 20:37 ---
Fixed on trunk. There are no plans to fix this in 4.4.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 20:33 ---
Subject: Bug 38823
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Mar 29 20:33:07 2009
New Revision: 145261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145261
Log:
2009-03-29 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/38823
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-19 00:36 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00231.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 00:40 ---
I have a patch for this problem. I'll clean it up on Saturday and
submit it.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 21:41 ---
> Add a runtime check that x in x**y is not < 0
I'm actually against a run time check which is based on -std=, -pedantic, -W*
or similar compile time diagnostic flags. I regard such trickery behind the
scenes as ev
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 21:30 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:13:57PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 21:13 ---
> I intend to change this, conditional on perhaps -ffast-math and/or -pedantic,
I don't understand the "and/or": -ffast-math and -pedantic at the same time
does not make any sense for me, -ffast-math allows some slo
--- Comment #9 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 20:08 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think it is
> a legitimate optimization to replace A**B by A**I (with I=B) when B is known
> to
> be an integer, hence to accept negative values for A in this case.
You can use A**I dire
--- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:58 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:37:25AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2
--- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:55 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:30:40AM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2
--- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:44 ---
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:28:05AM -, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> -2.0^1.9 will be a complex number. Maybe we can define it as ta
--- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:43 ---
Subject: Re: New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:08:40AM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Fortran 2003 in the second sentence of the second par
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 16:35 ---
I wonder whether this should be fixed together with PR 38823.
Currently, (x)**(non-integer) is never be simplified at compile time - and the
simplification would be an obvious place to do the checking.
--
http://
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 11:37 ---
> - Mathematica:
> -2^2 = 4, -2.0^2.0 = -4.0
> 2.0^1.9 = -3.73213 <--- probably -2.0^1.9!
Apparently Mathematica parse "-2.0^a" as "-(2.0^a)". (-2.0)^1.9 gives "3.54947-
1.15329 I". I don't know if the f
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 11:30 ---
> The question is whether one needs to reject it completely or only with
> -std=f95.
I vote for "only with -std=f95" with may be a warning otherwise. I think it is
a legitimate optimization to replace A**B by A**I (
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-13 11:28 ---
Subject: Re: New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:08 AM, "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org"
wrote:
> Found at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/0f1d7da
18 matches
Mail list logo
