(j3.2006) Question about DIM

[Keith Bierman]

Since, as you note, its non-conforming, a Processor is certainly free to
add checks and provide a lovely diagnostic message. Why must the Standard
get involved past defining it as non-conforming?



Keith Bierman
khbkhb at gmail.com
kbiermank AIM
303 997 2749

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Bill Long <longb at cray.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 11:50 PM, Cohen Malcolm <malcolm at nag-j.co.jp> wrote:
>
> >> Without the internal checks, there is little point to DIM.
> >
> > DIM does not have any internal checks, and none are possible when the
> result
> > is out of range.  You are arguing that the standard should mandate one
> > particular wrong answer; this is *NOT* an improvement on the current
> > situation, indeed it is a disimprovement since the error is detectable at
> > runtime.
>
> The whole point here is that the error is NOT detectable at runtime (for
> the integer case) except by including checks in the code, either explicitly
> by the user or internal to the code computing DIM.   I don?t understand why
> no checks are possible inside DIM if X-Y is out of range.   If X-Y is out
> of range, DIM can return any value it chooses since, on good authority, the
> program is nonconforming.  Returning zero, or a negative result, seems
> reasonable in that case.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
> Bill Long
>      longb at cray.com
> Fortran Technical Support  &                                  voice:
> 651-605-9024
> Bioinformatics Software Development                     fax:  651-605-9142
> Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20160114/2632682b/attachment-0001.html