(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4898) [ukfortran] Comment on a comment on the WG5 letterballot on N1947

[Malcolm Cohen]

Bill Long wrote:
>
> Page 42, Fortran.58.1, bullet 1: Unless you go to absurd lengths,
> detecting integer overflow is only practical if there is hardware
> support for this capability.

This is mistaken.

> Requiring this level of hardware design
> is generally outside the scope of the language standard.  Unless this
> is a proposal for an IEEE standard, I would prefer that it be removed
> from this section.

A significant number of Fortran users would prefer that it not be removed!

Anyway, it is not outside the scope of the Fortran standard.  Nick has already 
pointed out that COBOL requires it.  Furthermore, the Fortran standard itself 
already requires detection of a nonzero number of runtime errors, and has done 
so since Fortran 90.  We have added addition error detection requirements in 
every revision.

Although this bullet point appears first, the list appears to be essentially 
unordered with respect to either difficulty or priority.  I would expect that 
some of the other bullet points would be considered more tractable and higher 
priority, or "lower-hanging" in colloquial; that does not mean that this 
suggestion for consideration does not belong any more than the suggestion for 
consideration of subscript error detection mandation is out of order.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.