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: test for the MOD() intrinsic

From: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
To: Uttam Pawar <uttamp at us dot ibm dot com>
Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:54:46 +0100
Subject: Re: test for the MOD() intrinsic
References: <1133213706.17879.31.camel@linux.site>

Uttam, Richard, Brooks ....

According to f95, the second parameter can be 0 (zero), and if that is
the case then the result is processor dependent. While, f2003 says, the
second parameter can not be zero. gfortran (mainline) treats it
according to f2003 std. It emit errors if the second parameter is zero.

There is a TODO comment in trans-intrinsic.c concerning mod (x, 0.0). I am some days (realistically a week!) away from submitting a patch for MOD that causes the function to emit NaN in this case. I could have it emit a runtime error message too. Thus, the standard dependent behaviour that Richard has gleaned is possible.

Paul

References:
- test for the MOD() intrinsic
  - From: Uttam Pawar

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