Language lawyer interpretation needed
From: Kevin G. Rhoads (Kevin.Rhoads_at_Dartmouth.edu)
Date: 02/25/04
- Next message: Richard Dell: "Automatic variables"
- Previous message: Kevin G. Rhoads: "Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future"
- Next in thread: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Reply: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Reply: Steve Lionel: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Reply: Kevin G. Rhoads: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:02:20 -0500
OpenWatcom v1.2 F77 compiler is being checked against the NIST test suite. Almost everything
passed, but four tests still are at issue.
Specifically test FM403.FOR tests, among other things, Hollerith stuff. It looks like
originally it was getting the wrong input file, but the NIST tests are nice in that
they carry the proper input in comments, so I was able to construct an input file
for use in testing.
However, I found that the source would not compile properly unless the source file
was saved so as to avoid tab-replacement of repeated blanks. This makes sense to
me, as Hollerith things are essentially counted strings and tab-replacement changes
the count. Similarly, the input file needs the same care to avoid some overzealous
text editor changing whitespace to so-called "equivalent" forms involving tabs.
With the source file and the input file "changed" to avoid tab replacement, the source
compiles properly and the output seems to be correct, indicating the test is passed.
Before we consider this a PASS and not a FAIL -- are there any other things to check
here? Any reservations about this? Caveats?
- Next message: Richard Dell: "Automatic variables"
- Previous message: Kevin G. Rhoads: "Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future"
- Next in thread: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Reply: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Reply: Steve Lionel: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Reply: Kevin G. Rhoads: "Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|