Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!microsoft!bobal
From: bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Scope of intrinsics
Summary: Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Keywords: validation, Hybl, standard conformance
Message-ID: <7418@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 17 Aug 89 17:49:01 GMT
References: <1989Aug8.232014.9265@agate.berkeley.edu> <603@mbph.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 43

In article <603@mbph.UUCP> hybl@mbph.UUCP (Albert Hybl  Dept of Biophysics  SM) writes:
>
>Summary:  Of seven implementations, four gave the expected results,
>two ignored the intrinsic and one ignored the external index function.
>Jerry has just shown that not even STANDARD FORTRAN is portable!
>Unfortunately, many such examples can be documented.  What happens to
>a standard after X3J3 has finished their work?  Why isn't FORTRAN 77
>more portable?
>

I don't understand the problem here: Jerry has clearly identified a
program with well-defined functionality in terms of the standard and
identified processors which are not standard-conforming in this area
(although they may be validated compilers).

>A STANDARD CONFORMING FORTRAN compiler should NOT be released
>without first passing a suite of validation tests.  Who should
>be responsible for the validation?  Certainly not CBEMA!
>How about the NBS?  Approved implementations ought to be dated
>and stamped with a registered trade-mark.  Let me suggest that
>a cartoon of Magicicada septendecim be drawn and registered as
>the symbol of a validated FORTRAN implementation.
>

Well, I'm glad to know we spend about $10,000 a year not doing anything
(that's the cost to have NIST -- if the name hasn't changed again -- fly
a guy out and run the validation tests).

It seems to me you've warped this note string around to some entirely
unrelated path.

The real question is: what do you do once you find non-standard-conforming
features in a validated compiler?  I wish there was a way of calling NIST
and complaining, and forcing the vendor to fix the defect before re-validating
(the validation tests haven't changed in about four years).  It would hold
all of us to a higher level of accountability.

>Albert Hybl, PhD.              Office UUCP: uunet!mimsy!mbph!hybl

Bob Allison

PS.  I tried it on our compiler and it worked fine.  Thanks for the test
case.