From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5118 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2007 03:54:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5080 invoked by uid 48); 16 Mar 2007 03:53:57 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070316035357.5079.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/29471] Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com" 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: 2007-03/txt/msg01471.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com 2007-03-16 03:53 ------- One more comment: I just checked the INT() intrisic for F2003. It actually still states that a BOZ is initially interpreted as the largest integer type (ugh!) REAL() has the correct definition of interpreting as the target REAL kind. I have to assume that they think a LARGE integer will hold all BOZ values, and can simply be down-cast. Could they actually have forgotten about negative values?!? I have not checked F2008 yet. My vote is to just ignore the standards when it comes to negative BOZ, the way Intel has done it, which I HOPE is what F2008 says. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29471