🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep13.210932.322@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <92Sep12.023824.23909@acs.ucalgary.ca> bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes:
>
>>I reran the dpara check under OS/2 2.0 on my machine with those flags
>>-FPi87 -G2 -AL -Od, and surprise surprise, MS Fortran 5.1 came out
>>with only one SERIOUS DEFECT (after milestone 160), and completed the
>>test.
>>
>>But, BTW, for 1./0., the answer was, as before, 1.  And interestingly,
>>Paranoia did not flag that as being a problem.
>>
>>(Dov: I could uuencode my dpara.exe and e-mail it to you.  That would
>>let us establish whether the difference we note is between 5.0 and
>>5.1 or between your and my machine.)
>
>Well, I checked the executable of Luc (thanks Luc!) on my machine
>and it gave the same results as my executable: It crashed 2.0, but 
>1.3 passes with 1 FLAW. I could not check under DOS, since the executable
>was not bound. I tried to bind it with my libraries, but it failed 
>to run under DOS with a runtime error.
>
>So, this establishes that the difference in not caused by the difference
>in compiler versions.

However, on my machine, it completes the test with 1 SERIOUS DEFECT 
under OS/2 2.0.  So, it's not a difference between 1.3 and 2.0, it's
a difference between 1.3 and 2.0 that affects Dov's computer and
not mine!

Luc