http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #19 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Ryo Furue from comment #18)
Sorry again. I made English error.
> > Yeah, I get it. You don't like the choice that gfortran
> > made 10+ years ago.
>
> Not quite.
I meant, You are not quite rig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #18 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #17)
> > real, parameter:: a = -1.0
> > if (a > 0) write(*,*) sqrt(a)
> >
> > With such a switch turned on, the compiler can replace sqrt(-1.0) with NaN
> > and
> > le
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:07:32PM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
>
> --- Comment #16 from Ryo Furue ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #16 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12)
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:33:49PM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
> >
> > Is this an inconsistency in the implementation of -no-range-check ?
>
> No.
Then, w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #15 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #13)
Hi Harald,
Thanks for your message.
> I would also prefer if gfortran behaved as you suggested.
> Other compilers appear to generate warnings only, or no comment.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #14 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #11)
> > Overall, I think this kind of thing is better be a "warning" and that at
> > least
> > the compiler should allow the user to run such a code as this. The result
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #13 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:33:49PM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
>
> Is this an inconsistency in the implementation of -no-range-check ?
No.
>
> I would be nice if there were an option to demote thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:28:36PM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
>
> --- Comment #9 from Ryo Furue ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #10 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> AFAICT the option -fno-range-check is what you are looking for.
Thanks! That's exactly it.
But, I'm curious. The following code still fails to compile even
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #9 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> So, the compiler should just arbitrarily chose to evaluate
> some expression and ignore others?
No, I don't mean that. I'm not saying which expression the compiler sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:57:23AM +, furue at hawaii dot edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
>
> --- Comment #2 from Ryo Furue ---
>
> Of course. I agree with all your stateme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT the option -fno-range-check is what you are looking for.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #6 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Ryo Furue from comment #5)
I'm correcting two typos. Sorry.
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > parameter are special in fortran. The expression is evaluated at compile
> > time beca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #5 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> parameter are special in fortran. The expression is evaluated at compile
> time because of the parameter. a has to be replaced with 0 according to the
> fortran stan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Since my code includes an expression that can be evaluated at compile time and
>it's a division by zero,
parameter are special in fortran. The expression is evaluated at compile time
because of the paramet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #3 from Ryo Furue ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
Thank you for the prompt response!
[This is a re-post. I missed the "reply" feature and made a typo. I would
delete the other post, if possible.]
> But, it is evaluated at co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #2 from Ryo Furue ---
Thank you for the prompt response!
> But, it is evaluated at compile time, and so, you'll
> get the error.
I understand that.
> You are getting the correct diagnosis!
Of course. I agree with all your statemen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
19 matches
Mail list logo
