Hi Kyrlll, > Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com>: > > Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given the > benefits > mentioned above? If so, what would be the recommended adjustment to the > nan_1.f90 test?
I would be a bit careful about changing behavior in such a major way. What would the results with NaN and infinity then be, with or without optimization? Would the results be consistent with min(nan,num) vs min(num,nan)? Would they be consistent with the new IEEE standard? In general, I think that min(nan,num) should be nan and that our current behavior is not the best. Does anybody have dats points on how this is handled by other compilers? Oh, and if anything is changed, then compile and runtime behavior should always be the same. Regards, Thomas
