[Bug libfortran/47567] New: Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[Bug libfortran/47567] New: Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

           Summary: Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libfortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: thenlich@users.sourceforge.net


Fortran 2008, 10.7.2.3.2(9):
For an internal value that is neither an IEEE infinity nor a NaN, the output
field consists of blanks, if necessary, followed by a minus sign if the
internal value is negative, or an optional plus sign otherwise, followed by a
string of digits that contains a decimal symbol and represents the magnitude of
the internal value, as modified by the established scale factor and rounded
(10.7.2.3.7) to d fractional digits. Leading zeros are not permitted except
for an optional zero immediately to the left of the decimal symbol if the
magnitude of the value in the output field is less than one. The optional zero
shall appear if there would otherwise be no digits in the output field.

In gfortran, with an (F0.0) edit descriptor, some small values are formatted as
".", e.g.

    print "(F0.0)", 0.0   ! => 0.
    print "(F0.0)", 0.001 ! => . expected 0.
    print "(F0.0)", 0.01  ! => . expected 0.
    print "(F0.0)", 0.1   ! => 0.

Reason: "The optional zero shall appear if there would otherwise be no digits
in the output field."

Any formatting of non-negative values with (F1.n) should always result in
asterisks, because "a string of digits that contains a decimal symbol", where
"the optional zero shall appear if there would otherwise be no digits in the
output field" can never fit in 1. E. g.

    print "(F1.0)", 0.0   ! => 0 expected *
    print "(F1.0)", 0.001 ! => . expected *
    print "(F1.0)", 0.01  ! => . expected *
    print "(F1.0)", 0.1   ! => *

Similarly, for negative values and (F2.n):

    print "(F2.0)", -0.001 ! => -. expected **
    print "(F2.0)", -0.01  ! => -. expected **
    print "(F2.0)", -0.1   ! => **

The exact value "0.0" is formatted with a leading zero with (F0.n) formatting,
but this is incorrect, see bug 47434:

    print "(F0.2)", 0.0   ! => 0.00 expected .00

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |jvdelisle at gcc dot
                   |                            |gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 11:26:58 UTC ---
I concur with the expected results, which match also the NAG compiler. (By the
way, other compilers have similar problems.)

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011.02.01 13:48:33
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |jvdelisle at gcc dot
                   |gnu.org                     |gnu.org
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 13:48:33 UTC ---
On it.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-05 01:32:42 UTC ---
For this special case:

  print "(F1.0)", 0.0   ! => 0 expected *

Up to now, we have interpreted the last sentence in F95 10.5.1.2.1 F95 10.2.1.1
to require this to print '0'.

"Leading zeros are not permitted except for an optional zero immediately to the
left of the decimal symbol if the magnitude of the value in the output field is
less than one. The optional zero shall appear if there would otherwise be no
digits in the output field."

F2008 draft has the same wording.  Of course this is a little bit in
contradiction with another requirement that the decimal point be shown.  I can
easily change this to output the '*', but thought I would mention that what we
have now was done on purpose and is even commented so in the code.

I have all other test examples listed here fixed in a patch at this point.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-05 02:10:39 UTC ---
With:

print "(F0.0)", 0.001 ! => 0.
print "(F0.0)", 0.01  ! => 0.
print "(F0.0)", 0.1   ! => 0.
print "(F1.0)", -0.0  ! => 0
print "(F1.0)", 0.001 ! => *
print "(F1.0)", 0.01  ! => *
print "(F1.0)", 0.1   ! => *
print "(F2.0)", -0.001! => **
print "(F2.0)", -0.01 ! => **
print "(F2.0)", -0.1  ! => **
print "(F0.0)", 0.0   ! => 0
print "(F0.1)", 0.0   ! => .0
print "(F0.2)", 0.0   ! => .00
print "(F0.3)", 0.0   ! => .000
print "(F0.4)", 0.0   ! => .0000
print "(F2.0)", 0.0   ! => 0.
print "(F2.0)", 0.001 ! => 0.
print "(F2.0)", 0.01  ! => 0.
print "(F2.0)", 0.1   ! => 0.
end

I currently get, as patched:

$ ./a.out 
0.
0.
0.
0
*
*
*
**
**
**
0
.0
.00
.000
.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.

Looks reasonable to me. Any other opinions?

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-05 06:22:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 23251
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23251
A proposed patch

This patch regression tests OK and gives the results shown in my last comment.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #6 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-05 07:40:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> For this special case:
> 
>   print "(F1.0)", 0.0   ! => 0 expected *
> 
> Up to now, we have interpreted the last sentence in F95 10.5.1.2.1 F95 10.2.1.1
> to require this to print '0'.
> 
> "Leading zeros are not permitted except for an optional zero immediately to the
> left of the decimal symbol if the magnitude of the value in the output field is
> less than one. The optional zero shall appear if there would otherwise be no
> digits in the output field."
> 
> F2008 draft has the same wording.  Of course this is a little bit in
> contradiction with another requirement that the decimal point be shown.  I can
> easily change this to output the '*', but thought I would mention that what we
> have now was done on purpose and is even commented so in the code.

Regardless of this choice, the following should all print the same result,
which they currently don't.

print "(F1.0)", 0.0  ! => 0
print "(F1.0)", 0.001 ! => *
print "(F1.0)", 0.01  ! => *
print "(F0.0)", 0.0   ! => 0
print "(F0.0)", 0.001 ! => *
print "(F0.0)", 0.01  ! => *

I don't see anything in the standard which suggests that the exact internal
value 0.0 is to be treated differently from a positive internal value which is
rounded to 0.0 on output, and I don't see a valid reason for doing so.

In extension, the following should also print the same result:

print "(F1.0)", 0.0  ! => 0
print "(F1.0)", 1.0  ! => *
print "(F1.0)", 2.0  ! => *

In all these cases, there is the same issue, that "the decimal point be shown",
but doesn't fit.

Again, I don't see anything in the standard which suggests that the internal
value 0.0 is to be treated differently from a positive internal value which is
rounded to an integer number on output.

And in my opinion, the rule "optional zero shall appear" is not a contradiction
to "the decimal point be shown". Both are required, and the output just doesn't
fit the field, hence the field shall be filled with asterisks.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #7 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-05 07:45:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Regardless of this choice, the following should all print the same result,
> which they currently don't.
> 
> print "(F1.0)", 0.0  ! => 0
> print "(F1.0)", 0.001 ! => *
> print "(F1.0)", 0.01  ! => *
> print "(F0.0)", 0.0   ! => 0
> print "(F0.0)", 0.001 ! => *
> print "(F0.0)", 0.01  ! => *

Sorry, but what I meant was that the following should print the same:
print "(F1.0)", 0.0  ! => 0
print "(F1.0)", 0.001 ! => *
print "(F1.0)", 0.01  ! => *

And the following should print the same:
print "(F0.0)", 0.0   ! => 0
print "(F0.0)", 0.001 ! => *
print "(F0.0)", 0.01  ! => *

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-05 07:53:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> In extension, the following should also print the same result:
> 
> print "(F1.0)", 0.0  ! => 0
> print "(F1.0)", 1.0  ! => *
> print "(F1.0)", 2.0  ! => *

What I meant here was they should all either print * or 0, 1, 2

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-05 13:15:08 UTC ---
I completely understand your position on '*' vs '0'

At the time we first implemented showing that special case with zero, we had a
bit of discussion on it. It was clear that the standard does not explicitly say
that one part of its wording over rules some other part of its wording in this
case.

.001 rounds to zero on display but it is not zero and it would be misleading to
call it zero.

0. or .0 on the other hand, is truly zero and we have an opportunity to display
that information. We thought '0' was more useful than '*'. So we wanted to
treat this as a special case. There is room for interpretation in the Standard.
 It is not so definite as one might prefer it to be and I think it is standard
compliant to show it either way.

Does anyone else have a comment?

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-05 17:58:51 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb  5 17:58:48 2011
New Revision: 169853

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=169853
Log:
2011-02-05  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * io/write_float.def (output_float): Eliminate some redundant code.
    Adjust width for case of F0.X for values of zero and all other values.
    Expand cases where '*' is set to give cleaner results.

Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write_float.def

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-06 22:13:12 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk.  I don't think this is significant enough to justify a
back-port. I am not sure why anyone would use f1.X for anything, so this
exercise is largely academic. I do appreciate the bug reports. Thanks

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-07 07:01:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Fixed on trunk.  I don't think this is significant enough to justify a
> back-port. I am not sure why anyone would use f1.X for anything, so this
> exercise is largely academic. I do appreciate the bug reports. Thanks

Thank you for your work on this and for the fast response, which is actually
better than what you get from the "premier" support of some big commercial
compiler vendors.

Of course I agree with you that noone would use (F1.n) editing, that was
exactly my point, see my comment #1: "Any formatting ... with (F1.n) should
always result in asterisks".

However, because of the rule for (F0.n) we need to make clear what is "the
smallest positive actual field width that does not result in a field filled
with asterisks".

print "(F0.0)", 0.0   ! => 0

I'm still pretty sure that this is not compliant to Fortran 2003/2008 and I
would like a convincing explanation why it should be. Of course I can
understand the argument that "0" instead of "0." is useful to express the "real
zero", but I think standard-compliance takes precedence, making it easier for
the user to write portable programs.

In my interpretation, the demand of "a string of digits that contains a decimal
symbol" is equivalent to the syntax:

DIGIT ... DECIMAL-SYMBOL [DIGIT] ...
|
[DIGIT] ... DECIMAL-SYMBOL DIGIT ...

The clause "The optional zero shall appear if there would otherwise be no
digits in the output field." rules out the string becoming just:

DECIMAL-SYMBOL

As I see it, the decimal symbol is not optional and cannot be left out, so the
output "0" is illegal.

The phrase "contains" means that e.g. the Java method
string.contains(decimal_symbol) would return true.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #13 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-08 07:16:28 UTC ---
Regardless of the finer points of standard-compliance, the patch breaks the
following:

print "(F0.0)", -0.0   ! => 0 expected -0. (or -0)
print "(F0.1)", -0.0   ! => ** expected -.0 (or -0)
print "(F0.2)", -0.0   ! => *** expected -.00 (or -0)
print "(F0.3)", -0.0   ! => **** expected -.000 (or -0)
end

I think the minus sign of the negative zero is not an optional character and
should be displayed in all cases where it exists (otherwise it does not make
sense to have a signed zero in the first place). I think it falls under the
clause "a minus sign if the internal value is negative".

In no case should the field be filled with asterisks for an F0.n descriptor,
because there will always be a field width large enough to accommodate the
formatted string.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-08 12:36:19 UTC ---
OK, thanks for spotting that.  I will have a look.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-17 05:19:54 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 17 05:19:50 2011
New Revision: 170239

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170239
Log:
2011-02-16  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * io/list_read.c (read_logical): Check for end of line before calling
    eat_line. (read_integer): Likewise. (parse_real): Don't unget the
    separator. Check for end of line before calling    eat_line.
    (read_complex): Allow line-end before and after parenthesis and comma.
    Check for end of line before calling eat_line. (read_real): Check for
    end of line before calling eat_line.

Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/list_read.c

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-17 19:30:47 UTC ---
Disregard comment #15, typo in PR number

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-19 15:10:58 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 19 15:10:55 2011
New Revision: 170318

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170318
Log:
2011-02-19  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * io/write_float.def (output_float): Adjust width for F0.d to
    allow space for negative signs on zero.

Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write_float.def

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-19 15:21:10 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Feb 19 15:21:05 2011
New Revision: 170319

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170319
Log:
2011-02-19  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * gfortran.dg/fmt_f0_1.f90: Update test.
    Fix previous log entry.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_f0_1.f90

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-19 15:42:47 UTC ---
Closing once again. Thanks for reports.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #20 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-21 13:22:59 UTC ---
print "(F3.0)", -0.0   ! => -0.
print "(F2.0)", -0.0   ! => **
print "(F1.0)", -0.0   ! => 0

print "(F3.1)", -0.0   ! => -.0
print "(F2.1)", -0.0   ! => **
print "(F1.1)", -0.0   ! => 0

I think it's still wrong: It is not possible for any value to fit into a field
of width w, but not into w+1.

Either

1) For the special case of a zero, we consider the minus sign and the decimal
symbol optional (which I think does not conform to the standard), then the
result should be:

print "(F3.0)", -0.0   ! => -0.
print "(F2.0)", -0.0   ! => -0 (or 0. or 0)
print "(F1.0)", -0.0   ! => 0

print "(F3.1)", -0.0   ! => -.0
print "(F2.1)", -0.0   ! => -0 (or .0 or 0)
print "(F1.1)", -0.0   ! => 0

or

2) We never consider the minus sign nor the decimal symbol optional (which I
think is required by the standard), then the result should be:

print "(F0.0)", -0.0   ! => -0.
print "(F3.0)", -0.0   ! => -0.
print "(F2.0)", -0.0   ! => **
print "(F1.0)", -0.0   ! => *

print "(F0.1)", -0.0   ! => -.0
print "(F3.1)", -0.0   ! => -.0
print "(F2.1)", -0.0   ! => **
print "(F1.1)", -0.0   ! => *

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-21 14:22:51 UTC ---
OK, can you tell I am time slicing this one.  ;)

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-21 14:32:14 UTC ---
On my system I get with:
print *, "--------------------------------------"
print "(F0.0)", -0.0   ! => -0.
print "(F3.0)", -0.0   ! => -0.
print "(F2.0)", -0.0   ! => **
print "(F1.0)", -0.0   ! => *
print *, "--------------------------------------"
print "(F0.1)", -0.0   ! => -.0
print "(F3.1)", -0.0   ! => -.0
print "(F2.1)", -0.0   ! => **
print "(F1.1)", -0.0   ! => *

This. The difference being my signature zero.
 --------------------------------------
-0.
-0.
**
0
 --------------------------------------
-.0
-.0
**
0

I confess, it does not look consistent. Next time slice, I will update it.  ;)

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-24 04:52:05 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 24 04:52:00 2011
New Revision: 170458

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170458
Log:
2011-02-23  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * io/write_float.def (output_float): Remove special case handling of
    zero with width 1.

Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write_float.def

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-24 05:10:41 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 24 05:10:37 2011
New Revision: 170461

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170461
Log:
2011-02-23  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * gfortran.dg/fmt_f0_1.f90: Update test.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_f0_1.f90

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-24 06:17:30 UTC ---
Closing.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #26 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-25 13:58:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 23467
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23467
Programmatic test case for multiple formats

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #27 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-02-25 14:00:18 UTC ---
Way to go, still not quite right...

print '(f3.0)', -1E-6  ! => -0.
print '(f0.0)', -1E-6  ! => ** expected -0.

Comprehensive testcase attached.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #28 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-28 21:19:35 UTC ---
New patch which passes Programmatic test case has been submitted for approval.

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #29 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-01 02:24:52 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar  1 02:24:50 2011
New Revision: 170585

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170585
Log:
2011-02-28  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * io/write_float.def (output_float): Move handling of w = 0 to after
    output rounding. Check for zero and set zero_flag accordingly. Set
    width according to zero_flag. Add better comments.

Modified:
    trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/libgfortran/io/write_float.def

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #30 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-01 02:28:04 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar  1 02:28:02 2011
New Revision: 170586

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170586
Log:
2011-02-28  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR libgfortran/47567
    * gfortran.dg/fmt_fw_d.f90: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_fw_d.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

--- Comment #31 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-01 02:29:43 UTC ---
Thomas, can this be closed yet?

[Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing

[thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567

Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #32 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-03-02 14:01:18 UTC ---
No further bugs are known at this time...