public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
@ 2009-01-13 11:08 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 11:28 ` Andrew Thomas Pinski
` (18 more replies)
0 siblings, 19 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-13 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
Found at:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/0f1d7da66fa015c2
print *, (-2.0)**2.0
end
is invalid. gfortran should print a diagnostic for -std=f95/f2003/f2008 as NAG
f95 does:
Error: Negative floating-point value raised to a real power
Fortran 2003 in the second sentence of the second paragraph of "7.1.8
Evaluation of Operations":
"Raising a negative-valued primary of type real to a real power is
prohibitted."
The question is whether one needs to reject it completely or only with
-std=f95. Steve (see thread) thinks the constant folding gets it wrong
(-> gives "4.0").
Current results:
- Runtime and compile time evaluation (ifort, gfortran, g95):
-2.0**2.0 = 4.0
-2.0**1.9 = NaN
- Mathematica:
-2^2 = 4, -2.0^2.0 = -4.0
2.0^1.9 = -3.73213
--
Summary: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-13 11:28 ` Andrew Thomas Pinski
2009-01-13 11:28 ` [Bug fortran/38823] " pinskia at gmail dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Thomas Pinski @ 2009-01-13 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugzilla; +Cc: gcc-bugs
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:08 AM, "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
> wrote:
> Found at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/0f1d7da66fa015c2
>
> print *, (-2.0)**2.0
> end
> is invalid. gfortran should print a diagnostic for -std=f95/f2003/
> f2008 as NAG
> f95 does:
> Error: Negative floating-point value raised to a real power
>
> Fortran 2003 in the second sentence of the second paragraph of "7.1.8
> Evaluation of Operations":
>
> "Raising a negative-valued primary of type real to a real power is
> prohibitted."
>
> The question is whether one needs to reject it completely or only with
> -std=f95. Steve (see thread) thinks the constant folding gets it wrong
> (-> gives "4.0").
>
> Current results:
> - Runtime and compile time evaluation (ifort, gfortran, g95):
> -2.0**2.0 = 4.0
> -2.0**1.9 = NaN
> - Mathematica:
> -2^2 = 4, -2.0^2.0 = -4.0
> 2.0^1.9 = -3.73213
-2.0^1.9 will be a complex number. Maybe we can define it as taking
the real part. I don't know if that is better than generating a nan
here.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
>
>
> --
> Summary: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
> Product: gcc
> Version: 4.4.0
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
> Keywords: diagnostic
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P3
> Component: fortran
> AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
> ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 11:28 ` Andrew Thomas Pinski
@ 2009-01-13 11:28 ` pinskia at gmail dot com
2009-01-13 11:30 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gmail dot com @ 2009-01-13 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-13 11:28 -------
Subject: Re: New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:08 AM, "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org"
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
> wrote:
> Found at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/0f1d7da66fa015c2
>
> print *, (-2.0)**2.0
> end
> is invalid. gfortran should print a diagnostic for -std=f95/f2003/
> f2008 as NAG
> f95 does:
> Error: Negative floating-point value raised to a real power
>
> Fortran 2003 in the second sentence of the second paragraph of "7.1.8
> Evaluation of Operations":
>
> "Raising a negative-valued primary of type real to a real power is
> prohibitted."
>
> The question is whether one needs to reject it completely or only with
> -std=f95. Steve (see thread) thinks the constant folding gets it wrong
> (-> gives "4.0").
>
> Current results:
> - Runtime and compile time evaluation (ifort, gfortran, g95):
> -2.0**2.0 = 4.0
> -2.0**1.9 = NaN
> - Mathematica:
> -2^2 = 4, -2.0^2.0 = -4.0
> 2.0^1.9 = -3.73213
-2.0^1.9 will be a complex number. Maybe we can define it as taking
the real part. I don't know if that is better than generating a nan
here.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
>
>
> --
> Summary: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
> Product: gcc
> Version: 4.4.0
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
> Keywords: diagnostic
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P3
> Component: fortran
> AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
> ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 11:28 ` Andrew Thomas Pinski
2009-01-13 11:28 ` [Bug fortran/38823] " pinskia at gmail dot com
@ 2009-01-13 11:30 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-13 11:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-01-13 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 11:30 -------
> The question is whether one needs to reject it completely or only with -std=f95.
I vote for "only with -std=f95" with may be a warning otherwise. I think it is
a legitimate optimization to replace A**B by A**I (with I=B) when B is known to
be an integer, hence to accept negative values for A in this case. I find
upsetting to have to cheat with variables when constant folding does not give
the same result as a similar code with variables.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 11:30 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-01-13 11:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-13 16:35 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-01-13 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 11:37 -------
> - Mathematica:
> -2^2 = 4, -2.0^2.0 = -4.0
> 2.0^1.9 = -3.73213 <------- probably -2.0^1.9!
Apparently Mathematica parse "-2.0^a" as "-(2.0^a)". (-2.0)^1.9 gives "3.54947-
1.15329 I". I don't know if the fortran standard says how "-a**b" should be
parsed (nor have the time right now to decipher the legalese).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 11:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-01-13 16:35 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 19:43 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-13 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 16:35 -------
I wonder whether this should be fixed together with PR 38823.
Currently, (x)**(non-integer) is never be simplified at compile time - and the
simplification would be an obvious place to do the checking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 16:35 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-13 19:43 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:45 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu @ 2009-01-13 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2009-01-13 19:43 -------
Subject: Re: New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:08:40AM -0000, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Fortran 2003 in the second sentence of the second paragraph of "7.1.8
> Evaluation of Operations":
>
> "Raising a negative-valued primary of type real to a real power is
> prohibitted."
>
> The question is whether one needs to reject it completely or only with
> -std=f95. Steve (see thread) thinks the constant folding gets it wrong
> (-> gives "4.0").
For constant folding, it will be rejected because it can be detected
at compile time.
> Current results:
> - Runtime and compile time evaluation (ifort, gfortran, g95):
> -2.0**2.0 = 4.0
> -2.0**1.9 = NaN
I believe you're missing ( ) around -2.0 because ** has higher
precedence than unary minus.
> - Mathematica:
> -2^2 = 4, -2.0^2.0 = -4.0
> 2.0^1.9 = -3.73213
Try putting ( ) around -2 in the above.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 19:43 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
@ 2009-01-13 19:45 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:55 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu @ 2009-01-13 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2009-01-13 19:44 -------
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:28:05AM -0000, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> -2.0^1.9 will be a complex number. Maybe we can define it as taking
> the real part. I don't know if that is better than generating a nan
> here.
>
The ** operator has higher precedence than unary minus.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 19:45 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
@ 2009-01-13 19:55 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:58 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu @ 2009-01-13 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2009-01-13 19:55 -------
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:30:40AM -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 11:30 -------
> > The question is whether one needs to reject it completely or only with -std=f95.
>
> I vote for "only with -std=f95" with may be a warning otherwise.
It will be a compile time error during constant folding. The compiler
can detect (-2.)**some_real_entity.
> I think it is a legitimate optimization to replace A**B by A**I (with I=B)
> when B is known to be an integer, hence to accept negative values for A
> in this case.
I have no plans to change this optimization.
> I find upsetting to have to cheat with variables when constant folding
> does not give the same result as a similar code with variables.
In the general case,
function my_pow(x,y)
real my_pow
real x, y
my_pow = x**y
end function my_pow
we have
my_pow (real(kind=4) & x, real(kind=4) & y)
{
real(kind=4) __result_my_pow;
{
real(kind=4) D.1525;
D.1525 = *x;
__result_my_pow = __builtin_powf (D.1525, *y);
}
return __result_my_pow;
}
I intend to change this, conditional on perhaps -ffast-math and/or -pedantic,
to
D.1525 = *x;
if (D.1525 < 0)
runtime_error( )
else
__result_my_pow = __builtin_powf (D.1525, *y);
gfortran's default behavior in this instance should be conformance to
the Standards.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 19:55 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
@ 2009-01-13 19:58 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 20:08 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu @ 2009-01-13 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2009-01-13 19:58 -------
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:37:25AM -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 11:37 -------
> > - Mathematica:
> > -2^2 = 4, -2.0^2.0 = -4.0
> > 2.0^1.9 = -3.73213 <------- probably -2.0^1.9!
>
> Apparently Mathematica parse "-2.0^a" as "-(2.0^a)". (-2.0)^1.9 gives "3.54947-
> 1.15329 I". I don't know if the fortran standard says how "-a**b" should be
> parsed (nor have the time right now to decipher the legalese).
>
See Note 7.30 in the Fortran 2003 Standard.
-a**b is parsed as if it were written as -(a**b).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 19:58 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
@ 2009-01-13 20:08 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 21:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-13 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 20:08 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think it is
> a legitimate optimization to replace A**B by A**I (with I=B) when B is known to
> be an integer, hence to accept negative values for A in this case.
You can use A**I directly if you want to accept negative values.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 20:08 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-13 21:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-13 21:30 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-01-13 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 21:13 -------
> I intend to change this, conditional on perhaps -ffast-math and/or -pedantic,
I don't understand the "and/or": -ffast-math and -pedantic at the same time
does not make any sense for me, -ffast-math allows some sloppiness with respect
to the standard, while -pedantic does not.
> You can use A**I directly if you want to accept negative values.
I have never said that (-2.0)**2.0 is in my coding style. My point is that a
pedantic implementation triggers too many bug reports and are not worth the
time spent on it (see -2**31).
I agree with comment#0 "gfortran should print a diagnostic for
-std=f95/f2003/f2008", but not without -std=*.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 21:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-01-13 21:30 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 21:42 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu @ 2009-01-13 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2009-01-13 21:30 -------
Subject: Re: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:13:57PM -0000, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
>
> ------- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-13 21:13 -------
> > I intend to change this, conditional on perhaps -ffast-math and/or -pedantic,
>
> I don't understand the "and/or": -ffast-math and -pedantic at the same time
> does not make any sense for me, -ffast-math allows some sloppiness with respect
> to the standard, while -pedantic does not.
I haven't decided how I want to handle the general case. There
are few possibilities:
gfortran file.f90
Do nothing, ie., the status quo
gfortran -pedantic file.f90
Add a runtime check that x in x**y is not < 0.
or
gfortran file.f90
Add a runtime check that x in x**y is not < 0.
gfortran -ffast-math file.f90
Do not add a runtime check.
or
gfortran -fsome_new_option file.f90
Add a runtime check.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 21:30 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
@ 2009-01-13 21:42 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-16 0:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-13 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 21:41 -------
> Add a runtime check that x in x**y is not < 0
I'm actually against a run time check which is based on -std=, -pedantic, -W*
or similar compile time diagnostic flags. I regard such trickery behind the
scenes as evil and I would expect such an error only for -fcheck*
Note, there is already a check for
x = -1.9
y = (-2.0)**(x)
It gives NaN - and with trapping that is a SIGFPE. I think that should good
enough, but I don't mind having a -fcheck* option adding a run-time check.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-13 21:42 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-16 0:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-18 0:26 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-16 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 00:40 -------
I have a patch for this problem. I'll clean it up on Saturday and
submit it.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-16 0:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-18 0:26 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-19 0:36 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jb at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-18 0:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-01-18 00:25:57
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-18 0:26 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-19 0:36 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-29 20:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-19 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-19 00:36 -------
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00231.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-19 0:36 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-03-29 20:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-29 20:37 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-30 1:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-29 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 20:33 -------
Subject: Bug 38823
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Mar 29 20:33:07 2009
New Revision: 145261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145261
Log:
2009-03-29 Steven G. Kargl <kargl@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/38823
* gfortran.dg/power1.f90: New test.
2009-03-29 Steven G. Kargl <kargl@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/38823
* gfortran.h: Add ARITH_PROHIBIT to arith enum.
expr.c (gfc_match_init_expr): Add global variable init_flag to
flag matching an initialization expression.
(check_intrinsic_op): Move no longer reachable error message to ...
* arith.c (arith_power): ... here. Remove gfc_ prefix in
gfc_arith_power. Use init_flag. Allow constant folding of x**y
when y is REAL or COMPLEX.
(eval_intrinsic): Remove restriction that y in x**y must be INTEGER
for constant folding.
* gfc_power: Update gfc_arith_power to arith_power
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/power1.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/arith.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2009-03-29 20:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-03-29 20:37 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-30 1:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-29 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 20:37 -------
Fixed on trunk. There are no plans to fix this in 4.4.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38823] Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2009-03-29 20:37 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-30 1:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-30 1:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38823
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-12-30 1:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-01-13 11:08 [Bug fortran/38823] New: Diagnose and treat (-2.0)**2.0 properly burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 11:28 ` Andrew Thomas Pinski
2009-01-13 11:28 ` [Bug fortran/38823] " pinskia at gmail dot com
2009-01-13 11:30 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-13 11:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-13 16:35 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 19:43 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:45 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:55 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 19:58 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 20:08 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-13 21:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-13 21:30 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2009-01-13 21:42 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-16 0:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-18 0:26 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-19 0:36 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-29 20:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-29 20:37 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-30 1:01 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).