http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #14 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #15 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #16 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
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 furue at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #18 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #19 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #2 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #3 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #5 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #6 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
AFAICT the option -fno-range-check is what you are looking for.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
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 furue at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #9 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #10 from Ryo Furue furue at hawaii dot edu ---
(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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
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 furue at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
