Re: BOZ literal constants, a puzzle for us Standard-loving types.

Brooks Moses wrote:

(snip)

Yes. On the other hand, G77 had an extension of defining BOZ-literals as being a form of integer literal that could be in most (possibly all) places that other forms of integer literals could be used.

Thus, it would interpret real(-Z'00008000') by taking Z'00008000' as an integer constant, negating it, and then converting it to a real number as one would with any other integer constant.

Ok, then -real(Z'00008000'). I was taking the value from the INTEGER
case and changing it to REAL.

I'm not exactly sure what you expected real(-Z'00008000') to do under the F2003 rules, but it ought to throw a syntax error due to the minus sign. :)

Without the extraneous minus sign, however, real(Z'00008000') presents a bit of a conundrum for GFortran. G77 has long-standing semantics for what that should mean. F2003, as you point out, also has a definition for what it should mean, and the two versions are quite different.

You could do it based on -std= values.

At this point, GFortran is supposed to be an (essentially) complete implementation of G77's extensions, but it's not claiming to be a complete implementation of F2003, so we provide the G77 semantics, but that's obviously not the right long-term solution.

IBM OS/360 Fortran and VAX/VMS Fortran allow initializing REAL
variables with Z constants in DATA statements as bit patterns,
no REAL() needed or allowed. (Note that in both cases the ''s
are not used. DATA R/Z80C00000/) gfortran should supply a way
to initialize negative integers and bit pattern reals, for
both backward and forward compatibility.

(Note that REAL variables in VAX are middle endian, so
DATA R/Z000080C0/)

-- glen

.