Re: REAL type



"Dan Nagle" <dannagle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7%Smf.4501$hB6.3643@xxxxxxxxxxx

> Yes, the issue is "IEEE" quad vs double-double quad.

> make_pm gets this one right,
> http://users.erols.com/dnagle/make_pm.html

Yes, this looks interesting. The problem my code was trying
to solve is peculiar to this kind of forum: if an example
requires more effort to test than simply compiling a single
file and running the resulting executable, the number of
testers will go down dramatically. A classic example is
TEST_FPU.F90 which has been downloaded and tested an
impressive number of times.

If an example requires invoking a procedure to probe the
set of real kinds, it's clearly going to take more than
one stage to compile, and so its accessibility is greatly
diminished. That is why I wanted a list of possibilities
in current use so that I could just pick and choose
between them in a single-file, single-compile example.

Isn't it possible for a binary and a decimal real kind to
have the same precision and range but still be different?
Would a compiler that implemented decimal real kinds
have to include an optional third argument to
selected_real_kind so that the user could demand decimal
real?

--
write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, &
6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end


.