Article View: comp.arch
Article #12169Re: IEEE arithmetic (Goldberg paper)
From: jbs
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 01:12
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 01:12
35 lines
1562 bytes
1562 bytes
I said:
>I think that if a (legal) program behaves differently when compiled with
>and without optimization that then the compiler is broken. Perhaps you
>disagree.
Malcolm said:
B = 5.0
IF ( ( B .GT. 3.0 ) .OR. MYTEST(A) )
PRINT some diagnotic messages
LOGICAL FUNCTION MYTEST(X)
REAL X
MYTEST = some boolean work
PRINT a few diagnostics on the screen
RETURN
END
I modified this to:
LOGICAL*4 MYTEST
B = 5.0
IF ( ( B .GT. 3.0 ) .OR. MYTEST(B) )THEN
WRITE(6,*)' MAIN'
ENDIF
END
LOGICAL FUNCTION MYTEST(X)
REAL X
WRITE(6,*)' MYTEST'
MYTEST = .TRUE.
RETURN
END
I checked the behavior with the IBM VS Fortran and Xlf compi-
lers. In both cases the behavior was not changed by optimization. The
behavior differs between the two compilers but that is a different is-
sue. So this example will not convince me that I'm wrong. (Actually
I later softened my original statement to say it is undesirable for
optimization to affect a program's behavior.)
James B. Shearer
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9106190124.AA27410@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!WATSON.IBM.COM!jbsShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!WATSON.IBM.COM!jbs From: jbs@WATSON.IBM.COM Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: IEEE arithmetic (Goldberg paper) Message-ID: <9106190124.AA27410@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 19 Jun 91 01:12:20 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 35