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.