From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-428916-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30537 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2013 15:25:12 -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
Received: (qmail 30496 invoked by uid 48); 3 Sep 2013 15:25:09 -0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/58204] Spurious error when using BOZ literal to set an integer
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:25:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on cc everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-58204-4-X27WvZWVR2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58204-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58204-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58204

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2013-09-03
                 CC|                            |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |sgk at troutmask dot apl.washingto
                   |                            |n.edu
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
After knotting my neurons over the f2008 standard and their extracts in this PR
and PR54072, I think the current implementation (r202213) is valid for f95, but
does not handle the way it should be interpreted for more recent standards, at
least for f2008 (did not checked f2003).

Concerning the sign bit, i.e., "The interpretation of a bit sequence whose most
significant bit is 1 is processor dependent.", I think it does not make sense
to reject it (does anyone knows a present piece of hardware which is not using
two's complement?).