http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net>
2011-02-08 07:16:28 UTC ---
Regardless of the finer points of standard-compliance, the patch breaks the
following:
print "(F0.0)", -0.0 ! => 0 expected -0. (or -0)
print "(F0.1)", -0.0 ! => ** expected -.0 (or -0)
print "(F0.2)", -0.0 ! => *** expected -.00 (or -0)
print "(F0.3)", -0.0 ! => **** expected -.000 (or -0)
end
I think the minus sign of the negative zero is not an optional character and
should be displayed in all cases where it exists (otherwise it does not make
sense to have a signed zero in the first place). I think it falls under the
clause "a minus sign if the internal value is negative".
In no case should the field be filled with asterisks for an F0.n descriptor,
because there will always be a field width large enough to accommodate the
formatted string.
