[Bug fortran/53799] New: INQUIRE( RECL=integer_variable) returns -1

[Bug fortran/53799] New: INQUIRE( RECL=integer_variable) returns -1

[clivegpage at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53799

             Bug #: 53799
           Summary: INQUIRE( RECL=integer_variable) returns -1
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: clivegpage@gmail.com


INQUIRE(UNIT=myunit, RECL=rec_length)
should return the maximum record length that can be used for a sequential file
that is open.  At present the value returned is -1 for both formatted and
unformatted files.  The feature is defined in Fortran95 Standard section
9.9.1.25 and is also present in Fortran2003 and 2008 Standards.

Here is a program which shows the problem (and which works as expected with
other compilers):
program testsize
implicit none
integer :: s, r
open(unit=10, file='testsize.f90', status='old')
inquire(unit=10, size=s, recl=r)
print *, 'size=', s, ' recl=', r
close(unit=10)
! Try on unformatted file also:
open(unit=20, file='test.bin', status='replace', form='unformatted')
inquire(unit=20, size=s, recl=r)
print *, 'unformatted size=', s, ' recl=', r
close(unit=20, status='delete')
end program

[Bug fortran/53799] INQUIRE( RECL=integer_variable) returns -1

[clivegpage at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53799

Clive Page <clivegpage at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #1 from Clive Page <clivegpage at gmail dot com> 2012-06-28 18:21:37 UTC ---
I think this is a duplicate of bug 53796 which gives more details and
discussion.  For some reason I did not notice this when I submitted my bug
report.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 53796 ***