http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57628
--- Comment #14 from Ryo Furue <furue at hawaii dot edu> --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #11) > > Overall, I think this kind of thing is better be a "warning" and that at > > least > > the compiler should allow the user to run such a code as this. The result > > of > > the run may be a disaster but it's the user's responsibility. To refuse to > > compile these codes is too much patronizing on the part of the compiler. > > I think that it is better to issue an error. The fact that you think so doesn't prevent you from giving gfortran an option to demote it to a warning, does it? because that would please both camps. Other users (at least two of us) think a warning is better. And I gave an example where a warning is better suited to the purpose at hand. > gfortran does not support the IEEE 2003 standard. No one has stepped > up to the plate. Here's your chance to make gfortran doe whatever > you think the standard mandates. I'm not saying gfortran should implement the IEEE 2003 standard. I was just wondering whether the extension of replacing 1.0/0.0 with Inf now (-fno-range-check does that) would become more in harmony with the IEEE 2003 standard when gfortran implements it in the future. If so, replacing 1.0/0.0 with Inf as a default behavior (with a warming message) may be a better choice now. I was just wondering. I may be wrong. That may be a bad extension now. Cheers, Ryo
