This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: -2147483648 (again)


On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 08:00:21PM -0500, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> I've received more opinions, both in e-mail and in comp.lang.fortran, 
> regarding gfortran's rejection of the constant -2147483648. The 
> overwhelming concensus: the constant is valid, real world code usues it, 
> and "any commercially-viable" compiler (as one person put it) should 
> accept it. Some of these opinions come from members of J3.

First, -2147483648 is not a valid constant because 2147483648
is not valid (on a 32-bit processor).  Richard Maine clearly stated
that -2147483648 is a UNARY MINUS and positive literal constant.
Richard suggested that -2147483648 is valid integer value.

Second, "real world code uses it" means that those "real world codes"
are not portable.

Third, only 1 member of J3 (Richard Maine) commented on your
c.l.f.

> Given that my proposed switch to allow such constants was rejected, I 
> noew suggest that the compiler accept such constants by default, 
> flagging them when the -fpedantic switch is used.

Unless Paul or Steven rejected your patch in private email, then
I don't think it has been rejected.  If anything, it sparked 
discussion about what to do with the intrinsic functions and it
was left at that point.  For the record, I support your original
patch.

-- 
Steve


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]