On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 06:48:33PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
> > Le 7 oct. 2017 à 17:48, Steve Kargl a
> > écrit :
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:37:03PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> >> (4) Compiling
> >>
> >> print *, INT(z'',4)
> >> end
> >>
> >> gives
> >>
>
> Le 7 oct. 2017 à 17:48, Steve Kargl a
> écrit :
>
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:37:03PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>> (4) Compiling
>>
>> print *, INT(z'',4)
>> end
>>
>> gives
>>
>> print *, INT(z'',4)
>> 1
>> Error: Arithmetic overflow converting INTEGE
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:37:03PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> (1) Typo in gcc/fortran/array.c
>
> + /* If an array contains a BT_BOZ, then array elements need to be converted
> + an INTEGER. This is an GNU Fortran extension. Mixing BOZ and non-BOZ
> missing ‘to’?
Thanks. I'll fi
Thanks for working on the issue. While testing your patch I have found the
following problems:
(1) Typo in gcc/fortran/array.c
+ /* If an array contains a BT_BOZ, then array elements need to be converted
+ an INTEGER. This is an GNU Fortran extension. Mixing BOZ and non-BOZ
missing ‘to’?
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 09:30:06PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 10/06/2017 01:34 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I have spent the last few days trying to reconcile the various Fortran
> > standards' requirements for handling BOZ. The short story is that J3
> > over the last 27 years h
On 10/06/2017 01:34 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> All,
>
> I have spent the last few days trying to reconcile the various Fortran
> standards' requirements for handling BOZ. The short story is that J3
> over the last 27 years has made incompatible changes to the interpretation
> of a BOZ (under some c
All,
I have spent the last few days trying to reconcile the various Fortran
standards' requirements for handling BOZ. The short story is that J3
over the last 27 years has made incompatible changes to the interpretation
of a BOZ (under some circumstances). The interpretations in F2008 and
F2015
