Tomas L. Byrnes napsal(a):
Yes, and it you look at the real to integer, and integer to real,
assignments without conversion functions, you can see where the actual
assignment may be indeterminate. I don't have the datasets, and
haven't done Fortran since F77, but when I did Fortran, assignment
without type conversion produced unpredictable results. Specifically,
in little endian machines, assigning a real to an integer was a very
workable random number generator.
I learned fortran a few years ago, because I needed to test something on
an astronomical library. I used g77 and never met this issue.
HARRY's docs mention following compilers:
compaq f90, portland group pgf90, g77, gfortran.
And BTW it's depressing to read READMEs. That guy suffered when he tried
to work with old fortran code and datasets.. He had to reverse-engineer
undocumented binary formats, handle nearly-duplicate entries, found out
that someone fixed documented error in the data - but kept same
timestamp on the file. He had to handle weird scaling of coordinates,
obscure measurement units etc.. Search for 'cries' and for '% x10'.
*From:* Martin Tomasek [mailto:toma...@ufe.cz]
*Sent:* Saturday, December 05, 2009 4:04 PM
*To:* Tomas L. Byrnes
*Cc:* Drsolly; funsec; RandallM
*Subject:* Re: [funsec] simple question
Tomas L. Byrnes napsal(a):
Hence we return you to my focus: the code. Code does not lie, it
merely does what it was told.
By my reading, the CRU code produces ever more excited random numbers.
Someone else please read it and prove me wrong.
Quote from docs: "Had to make some changes to allow for the
move back to alphas (different field length from the 'wc -l' command)."
If their code depends on calling external programs, it will be
difficult to verify. Unless you are sure of actual output formats. :-)
--
Martin Tomasek
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.