home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!caen!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!bauwens
- From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
- Subject: Re: 2.0 fails miserably in the PARANOIA program ( was: Division by 0 crashes OS2/2.0 )
- Message-ID: <92Sep12.023824.23909@acs.ucalgary.ca>
- Date: 12 Sep 92 02:38:24 GMT
- References: <1992Sep11.123326.22143@tc.cornell.edu> <gyan.716247010@unixg.ubc.ca> <1992Sep11.225553.5638@tc.cornell.edu>
- Sender: news@acs.ucalgary.ca (USENET News System)
- Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
- Lines: 27
- Nntp-Posting-Host: acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca
-
- In article <1992Sep11.225553.5638@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
- >
- >Out of curiosity I checked with SPARA and MS-FORTRAN 5.0. I split
- >the file into 3 files of approximately the same size, and compiled
- >with the -FPi87 -G2 -AL -Od switches. I got:
- >
- >No failures, defects nor flaws have been discovered.
- >Rounding appears to conform to proposed IEEE standard
- >The arithmetic diagnosed appears to be Excellent!
- >End of test
- >
- >Again 2.0 crashed, and this time DOS crashed as well. Only 1.3
- >survived.
-
- I reran the dpara check under OS/2 2.0 on my machine with those flags
- -FPi87 -G2 -AL -Od, and surprise surprise, MS Fortran 5.1 came out
- with only one SERIOUS DEFECT (after milestone 160), and completed the
- test.
-
- But, BTW, for 1./0., the answer was, as before, 1. And interestingly,
- Paranoia did not flag that as being a problem.
-
- (Dov: I could uuencode my dpara.exe and e-mail it to you. That would
- let us establish whether the difference we note is between 5.0 and
- 5.1 or between your and my machine.)
-
- Luc
-