public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jb at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/48852] Invalid spaces in list-directed output of complex constants
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 03:38:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-48852-4-N1gMEevctL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-48852-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852

--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-05 03:33:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> We have another PR in place that is related to this, pr31190

Thanks for the reminder.

> One thought was to hide this behind an option so that one could stick with the
> default or go for a thin format.

I don't think an option is worth it; few people care to use such things, and it
just means more code to write, test and document. As the consensus in that PR
seems to be to retain the current behavior as default, IMHO this suggestion of
mine can be ignored. And as you mention, with (1X,G0) one can easily get
minimum-width fields.

That being said, this bug is still valid as it seems the standard is quite
clear that trailing blanks in the constituent real fields are not allowed (as
neither 0PFw.d nor 1PEw.dEe allow it). However, AFAICS leading blanks are still
allowed as they are part of the real parts, the prohibition against embedded
blanks in the complex output refer only to blanks other than the ones present
in the real fields, no?

So while 

print *, (1.0, 0.0)

may not output

 (  1.00000000    ,  0.00000000    )

as we do now, 

 (      1.00000000,      0.00000000)

is allowed and retains the fixed width fields we have now.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-05-05  3:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-03 12:49 [Bug libfortran/48852] New: " thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-04 20:45 ` [Bug libfortran/48852] " jb at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-05  1:09 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-05  3:38 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2011-05-05  6:53 ` thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-05-05 12:22 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-05 12:30 ` jvdelisle at frontier dot com
2011-05-05 12:49 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-05 13:42 ` thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2015-04-21 20:34 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-25  3:22 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-25  3:33 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-25  8:32 ` thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2015-04-25 12:35 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-48852-4-N1gMEevctL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).