Hi,
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, 4:06pm +0900, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:27:46 -0500, Peter Shenkin <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > The default size is generally the size that makes
> > the most sense on the current hardware/OS. On a 32-bit
> > architecture, this is, well, 32 bits. Note that breaking
> > the equivalence between default real and default integer
> > sizes would wreak real havoc, and you really don't want
> > 64-bit default ints in a 32-bit executable.
>
> The default size for real is chosen to be the *integer* size
> that makes the most sense.
Yes, good point.
> This is precisely because of what
> you say. Shouldn't Fortran, being a number crunching language,
> chose default size for real as the size that makes the most
> sense as a real number on the current hardware/OS?
There is no size that makes the most sense. 4-byte real
makes the most sense for me, most of the time.
Why does 8-byte make more sense as the default than 4,
16 or 32?
Also, FWIW, most compilers have a commandline option to
treat all REALs as DOUBLE PRECISION; but admittedly that's
not part of the standard.
-P.
--
Peter S. Shenkin Schrodinger, Inc.
VP, Software Development 120 W. 45th St., 32nd Floor
646 366 9555 x111 Tel New York, NY 10036
646 366 9550 FAX USERID: shenkin
http://www.schrodinger.com DOMAIN: schrodinger DOT com
Pre-arranged conf. calls: 702-759-8420 or 888-867-7084; passcode 646-366
|