# Is this expected?

**URL:** <https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/is-this-expected/6486>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [September 7, 2023, 5:34pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/is-this-expected/6486 "2023-09-07T17:34:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zaikunzhang](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/zaikunzhang/32/785_2.png) [@zaikunzhang](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/zaikunzhang)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2023, 10:33am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/is-this-expected/6486/6 "2023-09-09T10:33:29Z")

</div>

Thank @RonShepard for the suggestion.

Indeed, as long as I can confirm that the behaviour of `gfortran -Ofast` regarding `.eqv.` illustrated in my example is unexpected or questionable, then I will stop worrying and will not strive to circumvent it.

This is quite different from the [problem discussed in another thread](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/challenge-testing-inf-and-nan-with-gfortran-13-ofast/6481), where the behaviour of `gfortran -Ofast` regarding floating point computation is totally expected and I understand why it happens, although I would like workarounds to “fix” it.

---

_[View the full topic](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/is-this-expected/6486)._