From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Thu Oct 30 01:55:46 2014
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 33E6B358262; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:55:46 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B58356889
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:55:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9U0tgnu063042
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:55:45 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <E3A6FE89BCC942A4B8A0B92CBF6D7CE2@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20141027201943.09E1A3582F9@www.open-std.org><20141028005636.2C7383587BC@www.open-std.org> <20141028102557.7CB5B35672C@www.open-std.org> <20141029013031.9E1F43583A6@www.open-std.org> <Prayer.1.3.5.1410290900560.5982@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Prayer.1.3.5.1410290900560.5982@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5356) (j3.2006)   From a colleague
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:55:36 +0900
Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

>Obviously, the following code fragments have equivalent problems with NaNs:
>
>    IF (x) 123,456,789
>
>    IF (x < 0.0) GOTO 123
>    IF (x > 0.0) GOTO 789
>    GOTO 456

Obviously, they are not equivalent and so do not have equivalent problems.

>I am getting increasing tired of the polemic in favour of IEEE 754's
>handling of NaNs in conditionals.

There is no "polemic" here, we are just conforming to International Standards. 
Which just happen to be implemented on the vast majority of relevant computing 
systems so you are stuck with that anyway.

We are not going to pick a fight with the IEEE-754 committee.

>While is it certainly possible to claim that (say) NAG Fortran's traps
>are not in breach of IEEE 754

I question whether this is a suitable forum for a user 
complaint/query/whatever-you-want-to-call-it about the NAG compiler.

>, one has to twist the tail of the IEEE
>standard in order to do so.

We provide a means of specifying the initial set of halting modes.  There is 
nothing nonconforming about that.  We even helpfully name the options 
"-ieee=full" and "-ieee=stop"!  Within the program, the user has full control 
(regardless of the option he selected).

Anyway, this is way off topic for WG5.  If you have a query about the NAG 
compiler, I recommend contacting NAG user support.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.