From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Jan 14 00:49:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 1E8A5356C1E; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:49:22 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail4.ukisp.com (mail4.ukisp.com [80.175.48.54]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093DF3569EF for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:49:20 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 6124 invoked by uid 399); 13 Jan 2013 21:50:45 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mail4.ukisp.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT,RDNS_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 X-Virus-Scan: Scanned by ClamAV 0.95.2 (no viruses); Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:50:45 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xps7100) (86.15.43.172) by mail4.ukisp.com with ESMTPM; 13 Jan 2013 21:50:45 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 86.15.43.172 From: "Ian Chivers" To: "'fortran standards email list for J3'" , "'WG5'" References: <20130108205438.50F4E356B56@www.open-std.org> <20130113210632.B1C67356BEA@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20130113210632.B1C67356BEA@www.open-std.org> Subject: RE: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4893) Comment on a comment on the WG5 letter ballot on N1947 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:51:35 -0000 Message-ID: <000601cdf1d8$3aa58b50$aff0a1f0$@chivers@chiversandbryan.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3xwVFiaNUvfCdtQJm+iIHkUhepjQAFmtFA Content-Language: en-gb Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I can't find Bill's original post. It may have been marked as spam by my email provider. Could someone send the complete text of Bill's post? I want to see the complete post before replying. Thanks Ian Chivers -----Original Message----- From: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of N.M. Maclaren Sent: 13 January 2013 19:08 To: WG5 Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4893) Comment on a comment on the WG5 letter ballot on N1947 This is irrelevant to the vote, and is NOT intended to be added to it, but might be considered by the editor and vulnerabilities group. I am merely dissenting from one technical point. Bill Long wrote: > > Page 42, Fortran.58.1, bullet 1: Unless you go to absurd lengths, > detecting integer overflow is only practical if there is hardware > support for this capability. Requiring this level of hardware design > is generally outside the scope of the language standard. Unless this > is a proposal for an IEEE standard, I would prefer that it be removed > from this section. This is overstated, because hardware support is NOT needed, and the feature is specified by at least Cobol. It does degrade performance, though by much less than is usually claimed, as has been found in many compilers on many architectures. There is a significant minority of Fortran users who favour this facility being added, at least as an option. All I am saying is that the requirement 'should be considered' is reasonable. Regards, Nick Maclaren. _______________________________________________ J3 mailing list J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3