[Bug fortran/29471] Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places

["jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- Comment #5 from jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com  2007-03-16 03:46 -------
BOZ processing was recently broken in gfortran. I assume it relates to the
issues here.

The current problem is shown in this bit of code:

  write(*,*)'NaN(8)=',real(z'FFF8000000000000',8)
  end

gfortran, even with -std=f2003, claims that the BOZ data is too big.
Apparently, it is first converting to an UNSIGNED integer, then trying to cast
to a SIGNED Fortran integer. With F2003, this form of BOZ should do a
'reinterpret-cast' of raw binary bits directly to the destination type.

Even without the reinterpret cast problem, integer BOZ is not handled
correctly. This expression also claims the BOZ is too large:
   int(z'FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF',8)

Again, it is being intepreted as an UNSIGNED int then static-cast to a signed
in, thus overflowing.

The traditional behavior is for all BOZ to be initially interpreted as the
largets integer type supported. As usual with Fortran, that is a horrible
definition. In order to define a -1 BYTE, you have to write out the whole
8-bytes worth of FF. Intel seems to use a sane (but nonstandard) method that
appears to interpret initially as the smallest type that contains all of the
bits specified.

F95 dropped BOZ because of the lame definition, but F2003 brought it back for
use mainly within REAL() and INT(), which allow the raw initial interpretation
in a sensible way.

The only hassle with "processor dependent" definitions is that the result of a
given binary value depends on a processor's internal binary format. So, IEEE
floats are portable, but other long/quad real numbers are not. In any case, it
comes down to a raw binary value converted directly to the destination for the
F2003 forms.

For the older form, which is still the case in F2003 for DATA statements, it is
hard to know whether to 'cheat' and allow z'FF' to define a -1 byte, or stick
to the strict messed-up definition. What did G77 do?

A related problem is that I am trying to create a NaN constant (parameter). I
can't use REAL+BOZ, but I also cannot define "real :: NaN = 0.0/0.0". In this
case, divide-by-zero is invalid math, but should only be a warning and not an
error. (I am speaking practically; I don't know what the standards say.)

But, good news, I just discovered that this hack works:
  NaN = transfer(ishft(int(z'FFF80000',8),32),0.0_8)

I tried that a while back with gfortran and it crashed. What we really need is
a NAN(kind=8) intrinsic.


-- 

jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29471