From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.73.162 with SMTP id m2mr41224196obv.4.1430747120527; Mon, 04 May 2015 06:45:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.136.166 with SMTP id qb6mr148513igb.2.1430747120510; Mon, 04 May 2015 06:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l13no13665970iga.0!news-out.google.com!kd3ni7966igb.0!nntp.google.com!l13no13665969iga.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 06:45:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <12de08w8nsrts.qn1blaxh6pe1.dlg@40tude.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=123.2.70.40; posting-account=S_MdrwoAAAD7T2pxG2e393dk6y0tc0Le NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.2.70.40 References: <1kxou0nloqg9c$.1x0itzgdrlosm$.dlg@40tude.net> <1i8x3r1feyzkt$.j85il7e3wpv9.dlg@40tude.net> <142zdljlf0w57.1xh4g0wxv88y8.dlg@40tude.net> <1clezdvkle213$.z5pl2xkhti8a$.dlg@40tude.net> <723a14f8-d648-4612-acca-833db6a337d5@googlegroups.com> <12de08w8nsrts.qn1blaxh6pe1.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0b2fd749-145d-46fd-9f4c-75812c1afd05@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: getting same output as gfortran, long_float From: robin.vowels@gmail.com Injection-Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 13:45:20 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:25729 Date: 2015-05-04T06:45:19-07:00 List-Id: 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.