Re: [patch,fortran] Fix PR19310 unnecessary error for overflowing results

[Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>]

Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:41:50PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>
> > :REVIEWMAIL:
> >
> > The attached patch expands considerably on the last one.
> >
> > I think I have covered all possibilities in the correct order.
> >
> > This is a request for further comment.
> >
> > It occurred to me that in simplify.c there are many functions with their 
> > own error checking independent of range_check.  Do we want to incorporate 
> > the -frange_check flag into these error checks?
> >
> > Also I noticed that IFORT does not do all this checking by default and 
> > happily compiles a lot of stuff.  We could default this the other way.  Any 
> > thoughts on that? (not that intel is the only way to do this)
> >
> > Regardless, the patch regtests OK, including the test case I submitted 
> > earlier.
> >
> > If no further comments is this OK to commit?
> >
> > Regards,
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> I read the patch and I think it's almost ready to commit.
> However, I want to study the part in arith.c where it looks
> likes you disable the gradual underflow via SUBNORMAL, and
> I want to check the logic the with complex types.  In a quick
> read, it looks like you skip the imaginary part depending on
> the checking of the real part.
Steve,

If we return an ARITH_UNDERFLOW on subnormal we will get a compile time error. 
We want the value to continue on and not give an error.

On complex, there is no need to check the imaginary part if there is a range 
error on the real part.  This is the original logic, I intended to just add 
additional cases.

Looking forward to your final review.

Thanks,

Jerry