Toon Moene wrote:
>Keith Bierman ADT/QED wrote:
>
>> >(and the implementation can do anything it likes) or are IEEE exceptions
>>
>> There is an IEEE TR, which will be part of F2k.
>
[...]
>
>I think IEEE conformance as proposed in the TR (and as it is currently
>in the F2K draft) is simply incompatible with the looseness Fortran
>treated (floating point) computations earlier on.
I disagree. The IEEE TR has no effect on existing procedures, it only affects
procedures which call the IEEE routines. Note that there are no "signal
handlers" so that it is not possible to count the number of exceptions
(other than zero/more-than-zero) in normal code.
Anyway, one of the major design goals of the TR was to avoid affecting
existing code. If you have any example where this approach has failed I
suggest you report it so that it can be fixed!
>IMNSHO, the only way to have both IEEE conformant computations specified
>by F2K and not throw away the expectations of Fortran users of the past
>4 decades is to allow the processor a priori knowledge about the
>behaviour the user expects (i.e. a compile time switch).
Not so, the user who wants to do IEEE-style things can access them using the
IEEE modules. That is what they are there for.
Cheers,
--
...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
([log in to unmask])
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
