| Message ID | 1b7decb2-7e3e-e98d-9dce-b07135aa11f2@codethink.co.uk |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | BOZ Documentation update | expand |
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:25:03PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote: > In section 6.1.10 BOZ literal constants of the gfortran manual > (gfortran.pdf) the final paragraph refers to integer overflow error. As > a result of Steve Kargl's work on BOZ constants these errors no longer > occur. > > This patch deletes the paragraph. I've checked info, pdf, dvi and HTML > documents. > > OK to commit? > Yes. Thanks for cleaning this up. I've been off fixing other issues and forgot about updating the docs.
On 16/08/2019 15:55, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:25:03PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote: >> In section 6.1.10 BOZ literal constants of the gfortran manual >> (gfortran.pdf) the final paragraph refers to integer overflow error. As >> a result of Steve Kargl's work on BOZ constants these errors no longer >> occur. >> >> This patch deletes the paragraph. I've checked info, pdf, dvi and HTML >> documents. >> >> OK to commit? >> > Yes. Thanks for cleaning this up. I've been off fixing > other issues and forgot about updating the docs. > Thanks, committed as revision 274667.
From ac4020d699dac4585c801cd62e34db59d766cfca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@codethink.com> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:34:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] BOZ documentation update Remove paragraph referring to integer overflow messages as it is no longer the case. --- gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi index 16be9e05b43..4515b9d02e4 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi +++ b/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi @@ -1882,13 +1882,6 @@ with @code{2.0}.) As different compilers implement the extension differently, one should be careful when doing bitwise initialization of non-integer variables. -Note that initializing an @code{INTEGER} variable with a statement such -as @code{DATA i/Z'FFFFFFFF'/} will give an integer overflow error rather -than the desired result of @math{-1} when @code{i} is a 32-bit integer -on a system that supports 64-bit integers. The @samp{-fno-range-check} -option can be used as a workaround for legacy code that initializes -integers in this manner. - @node Real array indices @subsection Real array indices @cindex array, indices of type real -- 2.11.0