------- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-04 12:34
-------
(In reply to comment #2)
> (1) at least it should go the "enhancement" with the addition of " This check
> can be disabled with the option -fno-range-check"
We can do that, indeed. Reopening and marking enhancement.
> (2) I think the two cases are totally different:
> as soon as the compiler knows INF/NAN (and gfortran does), I think
> nearest(huge(1.0),1.0)==+Inf is part of the floating point model and should
> not throw even a warning (even with -std=xx -pedantic).
I think the standard is very clear on that. Quoting F2003 13.7:
"A program is prohibited from invoking an intrinsic procedure under
circumstances where a value to be returned in a subroutine argument or function
result is outside the range of values representable by objects of the specified
type and type parameters, unless the intrinsic module IEEE_ARITHMETIC (section
14) is accessible and there is support for an infinite or a NaN result, as
appropriate."
Unless we have IEEE_ARITHMETIC, we should stick to an error.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|minor |enhancement
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33296
