🚀 go-pugleaf

          I said:
>         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.)
          (My original statement was a compiler which compiles a legal
program so that it behaves differently when compiled with optimization
is "broken".)
          Jon Krueger selectively quoted this as:
>I checked the behavior <of Malcom's code sample> with the IBM VS
>Fortran and Xlf compilers.  In both cases the behavior was not changed
>by optimization ... So this example will not convince me that I'm wrong.
          and commented:
:I see.  Therefore no standard FORTRAN compiler would be permitted
:to do any differently, right?  These compilers define what is and
:is not a legal optimization, is that your assertion?
          I have the following comments:
    1.  This is not my position as I believe the final sentence in my
post (which you tendentiously failed to quote) makes clear.  Do you
disagree that it is undesirable for optimization to affect a program's
behavior?
    2.  I believe a compiler can obey the Fortran standard and still be
properly called broken.  For example it can take 100 hours to compile a
trivial program.
    3.  The person who posted the code example didn't say what the exam-
ple was supposed to show.  If it was supposed to show any compiler would
produce code that behaved differently when compiling with optimization
then it is incorrect.
                       James B. Shearer