Pierre Hugonnet wrote:
> robin wrote:
> >
> > Van Snyder wrote:
> >
> > > Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with writing libraries using SELECTED_REAL_KIND instead of
> > > REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION is that they might have portability problems
> > > in the area of generic resolution. If one procedure has arguments with
> > > SELECTED_REAL_KIND(6), and another has SELECTED_REAL_KIND(12), you
> probably
> > > get default REAL and default DOUBLE PRECISION, respectively, on 32-bit
> > > platforms, but you probably get default REAL for both of them on 64-bit
> > > platforms.
> >
> > Not if you use Walt Brainerd's idea of
> >
> > selected_real_kind ( precision (1.0) + 1)
> >
> > which should give a different kind from that for 1.0.
>
> This goes totally against SELECTED_REAL_KIND spirit, whose
> intent is to request a given precision.
And indeed it does [request a given precision]. It gives you
a different precision from that of 1.0, and resolves the generic
resolution problem that you were concerned about.
> Best regards,
> +-----------------------------------+----------------------------+
> | Pierre Hugonnet | mail....CGG |
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|