Possible fix to PR 14059

[Paul Brook]

On Sunday 16 May 2004 21:37, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Gang,
>
> Below is a patch that may be a fix for 14059.

Please supply ChangeLog entries with patches.

gfc_range_check should be renamed, and the comment updated to indicate that it 
may change the value of the expression.

> Should gfortran issue a warning for the UNDERFLOW?

If we bother checking for underflow, we may as well allow issuing of a 
warning.

  if (rc == ARITH_UNDERFLOW)
    {
      rc = ARITH_OK;
      *resultp = result;
    }
  else if (rc != ARITH_OK)

Would be better written as

  if (rc != ARITH_OK && rc != ARITH_UNDERFLOW)

Either way, I think this logic would be better moved into gfc_range_check.

What about all the other places that use gfc_check_range/gfc_check_real_range, 
should they still issue errors? For example, ifort accepts the following 
without complaint:

  real :: r = 1.0e-99

Where TINY(r) == 1.1754943E-38

Paul