From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21238 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2007 15:27:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 21148 invoked by uid 48); 2 Feb 2007 15:26:45 -0000 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:27:00 -0000 Subject: [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC Message-ID: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com" 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 For a code with an arithmetic IF, for example program xx implicit none integer :: i i = 0 if (i) 10,20,30 10 print*,"negative" stop 20 print*,"zero" stop 30 print*,"positive" stop end program xx mingw gfortran 4.3.0 20061021 says In file xarithmetic_if.f90:5 if (i) 10,20,30 1 Warning: Obsolete: arithmetic IF statement at (1) According to the Fortran 95 Handbook the arithmetic IF is "obsolescent", not "obsolete". The Fortran 2003 standard lists the following features as "obsolescent" in section B.2, "Obsolescent features". 5 (1) Arithmetic IF — use the IF statement (8.1.2.4) or IF construct (8.1.2). 6 (2) Shared DO termination and termination on a statement other than END DO or CON7 TINUE — use an END DO or a CONTINUE statement for each DO statement. 8 (3) Alternate return — see B.2.1. 9 (4) Computed GO TO statement — see B.2.2. 10 (5) Statement functions — see B.2.3. 11 (6) DATA statements amongst executable statements — see B.2.4. 12 (7) Assumed length character functions — see B.2.5. 13 (8) Fixed form source — see B.2.6. 14 (9) CHARACTER* form of CHARACTER declaration — see B.2.7. Gfortran should use the term "obsolescent" rather than "obsolete" for all of these features. I have only looked at arithmetic IF. -- Summary: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" Product: gcc Version: 4.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681