... systems have different floating point formats. Also, even on the same system some do constant arithmetic in software. When the pentium FDIV bug came out, some test programs failed to detect it, doing the constant division expression as software emulation. I could imagine more differences in the results of compile time and run time intrinsic functions. Another reason not to do equality testing of floating point values. -- glen

... run out of compiler resources much earlier. There are gfortran builds for 64-bit Windows that run on 32-bit Windows, Cygwin, or even LINUX. I think they are all built on LINUX because the build environment assumes some kind of UNIX command shell, so the versions that don't run under LINUX or 64-bit Windows are triple crosses. There are versions of unix-like command shells, that run on cygwin and on Win-32. -- glen

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: I could imagine more differences in the results of compile time and run time intrinsic functions. Another reason not to do equality testing of floating point values. Yes, and I think the current thinking is more along exactly those lines - that this is a case of the reasons to avoid dependence on exact equality of floating point things in general, as opposed to a reason to limit ...

...:ia32 on Windows.) SSE2 instead of x87, or something else? If you compare to x87 code with intermediate results in the 80 bit registers (64 bit significand) then the results might be different. There is a discussion on another list on the advantages of extra precision in floating point products. It would be nice to have a high-level language allowing for extra precision in multiply/add, such as generated by the x87. -- glen

...Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:24:21 -0500 schrieb Glen Harness: I still need to manually go through the ... still don't want to get rid of them. Glen "Diane Poremsky [MVP]" <outlookmvp@msn.com> wrote in ... point your newsreader to msnews.microsoft.com. "Glen Harness" <glen@harness.us> wrote in message news:#..., but Microsoft's documentation is less than adequate. Anyone have any ideas? Glen

...> subroutine other_sub () end subroutine other_sub end module foo ---CUT--- Is my code standard conforming or not? It is not standard conforming code. As Glen Hermannsfeldt suggests, you need to either provide an explicit interface for other_sub or declare it in an EXTERNAL statement. My guess is that Intel Fortran will report the error to you if you use the right compiler option....

... what this error message means; surely, the other_sub name uniquely identifies a subroutine throughout the whole module? Is my code standard conforming or not? It is not standard conforming code. As Glen Hermannsfeldt suggests, you need to either provide an explicit interface for other_sub or declare it in an EXTERNAL statement. My guess is that Intel Fortran will report the error to you if you use the right compiler...

... what this error message means; surely, the other_sub name uniquely identifies a subroutine throughout the whole module? Is my code standard conforming or not? It is not standard conforming code. As Glen Hermannsfeldt suggests, you need to either provide an explicit interface for other_sub or declare it in an EXTERNAL statement. My guess is that Intel Fortran will report the error to you if you use the right compiler...

...don't really understand what this error message means; surely, the other_sub name uniquely identifies a subroutine throughout the whole module? Is my code standard conforming or not? It is not standard conforming code. As Glen Hermannsfeldt suggests, you need to either provide an explicit interface for other_sub or declare it in an EXTERNAL statement. My guess is that Intel Fortran will report the error to you if you use the right ...

... message means; surely, the other_sub name uniquely identifies a subroutine throughout the whole module? Is my code standard conforming or not? Some languages have rules that names have to be defined before they are used. I believe Fortran doesn't, but you can imagine with a large number of statements in those subroutines that the compiler wouldn't find out for a long time that other_sub is the name of a subroutine. -- glen