From: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>, gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: GCC beaten by ICC in stupid trig test!
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4063147E.60602@coyotegulch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40626EC9.3080408@gnat.com>
Robert Dewar wrote:
> In Fortran, this is an incorrect interpretation, the standard definitely
> differentiates between (a+b)+c and a+b+c. So a Fortran compiler is
> allowed to reassociate the second expression (but it is a bad idea, and
> it is desirable to have a mode in which this freedom is not taken
> advangtage of).
From the latest Committee Draft of Fortran 2003, section 7.8.1.3:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The rules given in 7.2.1 specify the interpretation of a numeric
intrinsic operation. Once the interpretation has been established in
accordance with those rules, the processor may evaluate any
mathematically equivalent expression, provided that the integrity of
parentheses is not violated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-25 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-15 16:06 Robert Dewar
2004-03-16 8:45 ` Per Abrahamsen
2004-03-17 0:09 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-17 0:36 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-17 5:53 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-17 7:21 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-17 9:10 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-21 16:55 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-23 19:38 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-23 19:58 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-23 20:49 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-03-24 8:17 ` Toon Moene
2004-03-24 13:50 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-24 18:25 ` Paul Koning
2004-03-24 18:51 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-25 18:18 ` Per Abrahamsen
2004-03-27 1:26 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-24 18:56 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-24 19:10 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-24 19:14 ` Richard Guenther
2004-03-24 19:39 ` Paul Brook
2004-03-24 19:45 ` Dave Korn
2004-03-24 20:57 ` Paul Brook
2004-03-25 6:14 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-25 18:32 ` Scott Robert Ladd [this message]
2004-03-27 1:28 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-17 14:51 ` Per Abrahamsen
2004-03-17 15:18 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-17 16:05 ` Per Abrahamsen
2004-03-16 12:14 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-17 0:19 ` Robert Dewar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-25 16:51 Wolfgang Bangerth
2004-03-24 19:04 Bradley Lucier
2004-03-24 19:29 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-24 19:43 ` Bradley Lucier
2004-03-24 19:50 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-24 23:48 ` Toon Moene
2004-03-25 0:02 ` Toon Moene
2004-03-25 0:11 ` Roger Sayle
2004-03-25 5:56 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-25 6:07 ` Bradley Lucier
2004-03-25 8:18 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-25 16:15 ` Roger Sayle
2004-03-25 16:36 ` David Edelsohn
2004-03-25 17:09 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-25 17:47 ` David Edelsohn
2004-03-25 18:03 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-26 1:29 ` Toon Moene
2004-03-27 0:23 ` Daniel Egger
2004-03-27 0:50 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-03-27 0:55 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-27 0:58 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-03-27 1:16 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-25 5:36 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-25 8:46 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-25 5:34 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-25 7:24 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-25 8:28 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-03-25 18:19 ` Per Abrahamsen
2004-03-24 20:14 ` Paul Koning
2004-03-24 21:00 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-24 22:20 ` Dale Johannesen
2004-03-24 21:07 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-03-24 21:38 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-24 21:44 ` Joe Buck
2004-03-24 22:49 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-03-24 22:19 ` Richard Guenther
2004-03-24 22:21 ` Dale Johannesen
2004-03-25 7:29 ` Robert Dewar
2004-03-14 23:40 GCC viciously beaten by ICC in " Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-15 0:12 ` GCC beaten by ICC in stupid " Andrew Pinski
2004-03-15 0:32 ` Paolo Carlini
2004-03-15 1:31 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-15 2:36 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-03-15 11:25 ` Paolo Carlini
2004-03-15 11:31 ` Paolo Carlini
2004-03-15 13:29 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2004-03-15 13:42 ` Paolo Carlini
2004-03-15 13:51 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2004-03-15 13:55 ` Paolo Carlini
2004-03-15 14:00 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2004-03-15 14:05 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-03-15 14:13 ` Paolo Carlini
2004-03-15 14:18 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2004-03-15 14:29 ` Segher Boessenkool
2004-03-15 14:28 ` Joseph S. Myers
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=4063147E.60602@coyotegulch.com \
--to=coyote@coyotegulch.com \
--cc=dewar@gnat.com \
--cc=gcc@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).