From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20257 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 02:53:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 19985 invoked by uid 48); 23 Apr 2009 02:52:49 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090423025249.19984.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/38439] I/O PD edit descriptor inconsistency In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg02094.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-23 02:52 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Getting back to this. We have a problem of choices here. In format statements > such as: > WRITE (*,'(1PD24.15E4)') 1.0d0 > > Currently gfortran allows an extension of an optional comma separating format > specifiers. This results in the format string above being seen as: > '(1PD24.15,E4)' > > The error message given in the original post is from the missing period after > the E4. > > We could choose to allow the optional comma only with -std=legacy and then > these misleading situations would not occur. I am leaning in favour of this > more restrictive approach. Any opinions? > Conforming to the Standard is always good. I vote for -std=legacy. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38439