From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29869 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2005 16:38:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29833 invoked by uid 48); 31 Mar 2005 16:38:42 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050331163842.29832.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041225214626.19155.Thomas.Koenig@online.de> References: <20041225214626.19155.Thomas.Koenig@online.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libfortran/19155] blanks not treated as zeros in 'E' format read (NIST FM110.FOR) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg03563.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-31 16:38 ------- Summary of what other compilers do: Portland, Sun and IBM accept it, while NEC and MIPSpro reject it. My position would be: we go with the Standard. Can we somehow have confirmation that Steve's interpretation is correct (not an official interp, but maybe a well-advised opinion on comp.lang.fortran)? -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot | |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19155