bug report : gfortran E edit descriptor

[sudo.michio]

to:Dr.Dominique d'Humières and Dr.Tobias Burnus 
from:Mr.Michio Sudo

Thankyou for your prompt responses.
My research was not enough.
I will use the p edit scriptor as it is.
Best regards.

----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>
>> To: sudo.michio@jaea.go.jp
>> Cc: GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,fortran@gcc.gnu.org
>> Date: 2016-03-10 19:09:33
>> Subject: Re: bug report : gfortran E edit descriptor
>> 
>> > I have an trouble in E edit descriptor of gfortran.
>> > This is a example.
>> > (source file: test.f95)
>> >        program test
>> >        implicit none
>> >        real a,b
>> >        a=135.0
>> >        b=1737.5
>> >        write(*,*)a,b
>> >        write(*,'(e9.3,a,f7.1)')a,' ',b
>> >        write(*,'(1pe9.3,a,f7.1)')a,' ',b
>> >        end
>> > (compile)
>> > gfortran test.f95
>> > (execute)
>> > a.exe
>> > (result)
>> >    135.000000       1737.50000    
>> > 0.135E+03  1737.5
>> > 1.350E+02 17375.0  ( <--- wrong value )
>> >
>> > I suppose there are some bugs in the E edit descriptor.
>> IIRC 
>> (1) the P ‘modifier’ applies to all the subsequent numeric descriptors,
>> (2) when rP is applied to an F descriptor, the value is ‘multiplied’ by 10**r.
>> write(*,'(e9.3,a,1pf7.1)')a,' ‘,b
>> gives
>> 0.135E+03 17375.0
>> and
>> write(*,'(1pe9.3,a,e9.3)')a,' ‘,b
>> gives
>> 1.350E+02 1.738E+03
>> So I think gfortran is right.
>> 
>> > I like Fortran and I wish gfortran of GCC to be better compiler.
>> > best regards.
>> If you want to contribute, discussion about gfortran should go to fortran@gcc.gnu.org and bug should be filed in bugzilla.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Dominique
>> 
>>