From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3886 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2007 09:38:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 3815 invoked by uid 48); 20 Jan 2007 09:37:56 -0000 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070120093756.3814.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/30512] MAXVAL() incorrect for zero-size int arrays, and for -HUGE-1 maximum values. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01575.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-20 09:37 ------- Vaguely related is: trans-intrinsic.c's gfc_conv_intrinsic_minmaxval, which contains currently: /* Most negative(-HUGE) for maxval, most positive (-HUGE) for minval. */ if (op == GT_EXPR) tmp = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (tmp), tmp); Which has a broken comment and also the -HUGE vs -HUGE-1 problem (for BT_INTEGER only). Regarding the library, m4/iparm.m4 contains: define(atype_max, atype_name`_HUGE')dnl define(atype_min, `-'atype_max)dnl Subtracting one from atype_min is the correct thing to do for BT_INTEGER, but not for BT_REAL. -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot | |org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-01-20 09:37:56 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30512