🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun22.003029.16748@watson.ibm.com>,
prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener) writes:
> As immodest as it might be for me to agree with my colleague, I must
> agree with James Shearer.  Indeed, the spirit of FORTRAN is, overwhelmingly,
> that a program whose behavior is changed by optimization is not a legal
> program.

In that case, a subroutine like	
	SUBROUTINE FOO(X, A, B, C)
	    REAL X, A, B, C
	    X = A*B + A*C
	END
must not be legal.  Darn it, I used to _like_ Fortran.  (Yes, optimisation
_may_ change the behaviour of this program in a signficant way.)  Perhaps
more obviously,
	SUBROUTINE FOO(X, A, B, C)
	    REAL X, A, B, C
	    X = A*B
	    X = X + A*C
	END
may _also_ have its behaviour changed by certain optimisations.  (Hint:
Sun's compilers have a command-line flag related to this one.)  The use
of parentheses won't help here.

The moral of the story is that the values and operations provided by
floating-point hardware _apprximate_ that values and operations of
real arithmetic, but do not obey the same laws, so that a language which
licences transformations which are valid for the reals but invalid for
the floats is a language which licences a compiler to produce different
numeric results (possibly HUGELY different) depending on optimisation
level.
-- 
I agree with Jim Giles about many of the deficiencies of present UNIX.