BOZ, F2008 and F2015, and future of gfortran

[Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>]

Simply question.  Do people want gfortran to conform to
the F2008 and F2015 standards for boz-literal-constants?
Are people willing to let go of extension?

Consider

program boz
   implicit none
   integer(1) :: i = z'deadbeef'  ! Nonstandard initialization but
   integer(1) j                   ! accepted as-if initialized through
   data j/z'deadbeef'/            ! a data-stmt
   print *, i, j
end program boz

gfortran's current behavior with long lines wrap.

% gfortran6 -static -o z z.f90
z.f90:3:20:

    integer(1) :: i = z'deadbeef'
                    1
Error: Arithmetic overflow converting INTEGER(16) to INTEGER(1) at (1).
This check can be disabled with the option '-fno-range-check'
z.f90:6:13:

    print *, i, j
             1
Error: Symbol 'i' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type
z.f90:5:21:

    data j/z'deadbeef'/
                     1
Error: Arithmetic overflow converting INTEGER(16) to INTEGER(1) at (1).
This check can be disabled with the option '-fno-range-check'
A conforming version of

gfortran conforming to the F2008 and F2015 standards.
% gfcx -o z z.f90 && ./z
  -17  -17

-- 
Steve
20170425 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUpyCsUKR4
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow