--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 08:00 ---
I think one can consider supporting non-signed zeros as extension, similar to
ifort which has:
-assume nominus0The compiler uses Fortran 90/77 standard
semantics in
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 14:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=18158)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18158action=view)
Patch - lightly tested
Attached patch fixes the problem [independent of
-f(no-)signed-zeros/-ffast-math].
The
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 16:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=18160)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18160action=view)
dejagnu testr case
Test that sign(x, +-0) conforms to F95.
--
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 16:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=18161)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18161action=view)
dejagnu test case
Test case for sign(x,+-0) when the new -fno-sign-zero option is used.
--
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 16:56 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Created an attachment (id=18158)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18158action=view) [edit]
Patch - lightly tested
Attached patch fixes the problem [independent of
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 20:55 ---
Close as FIXED (on the trunk [= 4.5]).
Greg, thanks for the report. Using a 4.5/trunk build (e.g. one of the nightly
builds) gfortran will offer the option -fno-sign-zero which allows your
program to work.
--- Comment #17 from gdsjaar at sandia dot gov 2009-07-08 21:03 ---
Subject: Re: Support -fnosign-zero for SIGN
intrinsic for Fortran 77 compatibility
Thanks for the quick response. I agree that the ultimate fix is to
remove that idiom from the code; however, when dealing with
