Re: getting same output as gfortran, long_float

[robin.vowels@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 8:18:37 PM UTC+10, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2015 01:53:08 -0700 (PDT), r.nospam@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 5:21:28 PM UTC+10, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 May 2015 17:15:15 -0700 (PDT), r.nospam@gmail.com wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 5:45:23 PM UTC+10, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> Actually REAL*16 is exactly portable.
> >>> 
> >>> No it's not.
> >>> Some compilers treat that is an error.
> >> 
> >> Portability applies to compilable programs only. You could not compile
> >> 
> >>    type X is mod 2**64;
> >> 
> >> either. That does not make it non-portable, IMO.
> >> 
> >> Portable means: The program exposes same [logically relevant] behavior on
> >> all platforms [of interest].
> > 
> > Portable means that a program that adheres to the language standard
> > is capable of running on any system where there is a compiler for that language.
> 
> Consider a system without text output. According to you Ada's Hello World
> program is non-portable because such systems exist.

I said no such thing.  You're talking nonsense.

> It is a useless definition. For practically any program it would be easy to
> present a platform for which it would not compile or work or would expose
> some undesired behavior. Which is why it is *not* all behavior, but only
> the relevant (contracted) one and not all platforms, but only the intended
> ones. There is no such thing as absolute unconditional portability,
> 
> > There might be different limits for such things as maximum size of number on
> > different machines, but nevertheless the program is capable of running on
> > any particular system provided that it does not exceed such limits.
> 
> 64 bit is just such a limit.

So?  Did you read what I wrote?
If a program is capable of running on a number of different systems
it is ipso facto portable.

> >> A program that does not compile on a platform of interest is just an
> >> illegal program. It is neither portable or non-portable. We don't know yet.
> > 
> > But in this case, we know that the program is not portable,
> > because it violates the standard.
> 
> A program that violates the standard can still be portable and conversely.

You're talking rubbish.