[Bug fortran/52439] Calculation of natural log

2012-02-29 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P4
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2012-02-29
 CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29 19:51:59 UTC ---
What happens if you use double precision literal constants?
Is 0.01 exactly representable in a binary floating point 
format.

[Bug fortran/52439] Calculation of natural log

2012-02-29 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439

Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29 
20:02:04 UTC ---
100 is exactly representable in float but 0.001 is not.

[Bug fortran/52439] Calculation of natural log

2012-02-29 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439

Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
   ||gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-01 
02:47:01 UTC ---
Using in the example DTXR = 0.01_8 yields:

$ ./a.out 
  DTXR(0.01)   =  -4.60517018598809091400880788569339
  DTXR(100.0)  =   4.60517018598809180218722758581862