http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #37 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2012-07-21 13:51:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #36) > > To me, it looks like invalid test. Any fortraners here to share their > > opinion? > > Please read comments #23 and #24. One problem with NaN is that they propagate > until something trap them. When did you get a successful compilation? No, the first NaN was born exactly at this instruction. Please note 0 / 0 which is the definition of NaN.
