http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-13 09:42:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Mind the change between F2003 and F2008: > F2003: > FRACTION(+Inf) = +Inf > > F2008: > FRACTION(+Inf) = NaN See http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/07/07-200r1.txt for that change (cf. also http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/186/08-287r2.txt ). However, I think it makes sense to stick to the F2008 value - and ignore F2003. + if (mpfr_nan_p (x->value.real) != 0 || mpfr_inf_p (x->value.real) != 0) + { + mpfr_set (result->value.real, x->value.real, GFC_RND_MODE); + if (gfc_option.allow_std & (GFC_STD_F2008|GFC_STD_F2003)) + return result; + return range_check (result, "FRACTION"); + } + Regarding the coding: * if (gfc_option.allow_std & (GFC_STD_F2008|GFC_STD_F2003)) Better: "gfc_option.allow_std & GFC_STD_F2003)" - later standards imply earlier ones. * mpfr_set (result->value.real, x->value.real, GFC_RND_MODE); Better: mpfr_set_nan (result->value.real); I still miss that -frange-check is mentioned in the error messages produced by range_check() - and I am not really convinced that (a) the error should be conditional on -std=f95 and (b) that having a -frange-check enabled by default is a bad idea. I think many code problems have been found that way - and if the flag is mentioned in the error message, those few codes which need it, can simply disable the check. Side note: If I understand F2003/F2008's IEEE support correctly (that's a big if): You need to have IEEE_EXCEPTIONS or IEEE_ARITHMETIC loaded *in the scoping unit*, if you want to use IEEE 754 features. Additionally, a query for IEEE_SUPPORT_INF and/or IEEE_SUPPORT_NAN had to return .true. in order that those can be expected to be supported. In that sense: As the program does not load a IEEE module, it cannot use NAN/INF and the compile-time error is standard conforming ;-)
