From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-345078-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20775 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2011 17:21:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 20761 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2011 17:21:55 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:21:50 +0000
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/47434] Wrong field width for NaN with (F0.n) formatting
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47434-4-ZHVuTobZZq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47434-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47434-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:29:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg03017.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47434

--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-27 17:21:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I remember the discussion when we first implemented this and we wanted the + on
> Inf to be consistent with -Inf. 

Well, the following is in any case wrong:

  real :: inf
  inf = 0
  inf = 1/inf
  print "(sp,F0.2)", inf  ! SIGN=PLUS
  print "(ss,F0.2)", inf  ! SIGN=SUPPRESS
  print "(s, F0.2)", inf  ! SIGN=PROCESSOR_DEFINED
  end

The same result for "F4.2": Three times "+Inf". (Ditto for g95.)

For SIGN=SUPPRESS it should just print "Inf", whether "Inf" or "+Inf" is
correct for PROCESSOR_DEFINED is another question. For consistency with the
other compilers - and for consistency with 10.7.2.1(6), one should probably
remove the "+".

For "F4.2" also the other compilers do not seem to print a + with
sign='PROCESSOR_DEFINED' though I am not sure that I like
Intel's/pathscale's/open64's "Infi" for S and SS better. NAG and Sunf95 have "
Inf" for S/SS.


Regarding "0.00" vs ".00" with "F0.2": I do not have any real preference;
following 10.7.2.1(6) I am slightly inclined that ".00" is better.