From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-346501-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9008 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2011 07:16:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 8997 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2011 07:16:51 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 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; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:16:40 +0000
From: "thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/47567] Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing
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: thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution
Message-ID: <bug-47567-4-eu3KqiXL5y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47567-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47567-4@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: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:17:00 -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: 2011-02/txt/msg00967.txt.bz2

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.