https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022
--- Comment #5 from john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz --- True. I reported the bug because in ESw.dEe output format all 3 of w,d,e may be 0, but gfortran then gave the right numerical result in the wrong format with my test programs. (I'm told NAG hasn't yet implemented ES0.0E0 but ifort has got it right.) On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 03:39:58 +0000 > From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> > To: John Harper <john.har...@vuw.ac.nz> > Subject: [Bug libfortran/111022] ES0.0E0 format gave ES0.dE0 output with d too > high. > Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 15:40:09 +1200 (NZST) > Resent-From: <john.har...@vuw.ac.nz> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111022 > > --- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > The relative text in the standard is: > > 13.7.2.1 General rules > --- snip --- > (6) On output, with I, B, O, Z, D, E, EN, ES, EX, F, and G editing, the > specified value of the field width w may be zero. In such cases, the processor > selects the smallest positive actual field width that does not result in a > field filled with asterisks. The specified value of w shall not be zero on > input. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug. > -- John Harper, School of Mathematics and Statistics Victoria Univ. of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. e-mail john.har...@vuw.ac.nz
