Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!pacbell!rtech!ingres!Ingres.COM!jpk
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IEEE arithmetic (Goldberg paper)
Message-ID: <1991Jun20.022743.1474@ingres.Ingres.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 91 02:27:42 GMT
References: <9106190124.AA27410@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Lines: 12

jbs@WATSON.IBM.COM writes:
>I checked the behavior [of Malcom's code sample] with the IBM VS
>Fortran and Xlf compilers.  In both cases the behavior was not changed
>by optimization ... So this example will not convince me that I'm wrong.

I see.  Therefore no standard FORTRAN compiler would be permitted
to do any differently, right?  These compilers define what is and
is not a legal optimization, is that your assertion?

-- Jon

Jon Krueger, jpk@ingres.com