From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19356 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2007 16:41:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 19313 invoked by uid 48); 3 Feb 2007 16:40:58 -0000 Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070203164058.19312.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/30694] minval/maxval with +/-Inf 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:40 ------- > We should really be initializing our starting values to +/-Inf, both > in the library and the front end. In principle yes, but we need still return +HUGE or -HUGE (respectively -HUGE-1) for arrays with zero elements. I think the standard not really defines what happens for -INF, INF or NAN. nagf95, g95 and sunf95 also return +HUGE() not +INF. What should be the result of minval( [ INF, NAN ] ) or of minval([4, NAN]) ? (I think this PR is in so far disjunct from PR 30512 as the latter regards INTEGERs, while this PR is about REALs.) -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot | |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30694