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] |
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:19:51 -0700 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:53:28PM +0100, Steve Edwards wrote: > > > > Is this a bug/regression in gfortran? > > > > It is neither a bug nor a regression. It appears > you have discovered a compiler extension in Intel > and Sun's compilers. Of course, these vendors may > claim that +Infinity and +Inf are "literal constants", > which satisfies Sec. 10.8 of the Fortran 95 standard. Many thanks for that. I had tried to look through a Postscript version of the Fortran 77 standard but hadn't even thought of examining the Fortran 95 standard. Best I fix the code that generated the +Infinity so my post-processor doesn't try and read one then... As far as gfortran patches are concerned, well, it appears I have enough problems with Fortran coding - I wouldn't like to think of the mistakes I could code in C.... I assume it is read_real() in list_read.c though? Steve E -- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |