From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-353087-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5339 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2011 10:20:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 5325 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2011 10:20:09 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 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; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:20:04 +0000
From: "thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/48511] Implement Steele-White algorithm for numeric output
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: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48511-4-8OEANNIzmz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48511-4@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: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:20:00 -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: 2011-04/txt/msg00991.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48511

--- Comment #5 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-04-10 10:19:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Does any of the Fortran edit descriptors require, or for that matter allow,
> > this kind of "shortest decimal representation" output?
> 
> Well, the obvious(?) answer is the various descriptors with 0 width.

Not quite:

Since we're not talking about the shortest width (w) but the smallest number of
decimal digits in the fraction (d), only those descriptors where we can select
"a processor-dependent reasonable value for d" can be "shortened":

That would be list-directed and G0 (but not G0.d).

For all others the algorithm is still useful if we append zeros to fill the
required width: it is better to print 0.3000000 than 0.2999996

I'm still not sure where the Fortran standard says "a processor-dependent
reasonable value for d" that includes a "processor-dependent reasonable value
for d which also depends on the internal value to be printed" because that
would mess up tabular aligment for printing. This might be a feature users rely
on.