Re: [PATCH] New option to support asymmetric integer ranges in gfortran

[Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 02:21:34PM -0500, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> >What is the behavior the following program with your switch?
> >
> >program parambug
> >   implicit none
> >   integer, parameter :: MY_KIND  = SELECTED_INT_KIND(9)
> >   integer(MY_KIND), parameter :: X = -2147483648_MY_KIND
> >   write (*,*) X,",",MY_KIND
> >   write (*,*) ABS(X)
> >end program parambug
> 
> Compiled with my flag, your program prints:
> 
>  -2147483648 ,            4
>  -2147483648
> 
> Clearly, a wrong answer -- but it is the *same* wrong answer displayed 
> by Intel and Lahey. And translating the code to C for compilation with 
> gcc produces the same result.

Thanks for checking.  This is what I wanted to see, but I
obviously forgot to ask.

> Being a non-conformist by nature, a voice in the back of my head says: 
> "Damn compatibility!" But I know in my heart of hearts that gfortran's 
> correctness is a potential problem in a world populated by 
> less-than-perfect compilers and languages. So I think that a flag that 
> enables "bad" behavior is appropriate, for situations where one must 
> interact with others.
> 
> I should bring this up on comp.lang.fortran to see what the general 
> community thinks of all this.

I suspect you'll get the standard "You invoked an intrinsic function
with a number outside the model for integers, so you are getting
processor defined behavior (i.e., you just started WW III)."

-- 
Steve