From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-434201-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23832 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2013 19:57:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23795 invoked by uid 55); 10 Nov 2013 19:56:59 -0000
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/59065] questionable bounds for unassociated allocatable/pointer arrays?
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-59065-4-IAoJy5XVWL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59065-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59065-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00978.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065

--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 07:46:55PM +0000, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
> 
> --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca <zeccav at gmail dot com> ---

(compiler results deleted to keep this short).

Thanks for checking other compilers.

> All of them put SIZE to zero that looks to me better
> than one as gfortran does.

So, how does one distinguish bewteen a valid and an invalid
program?

program foo
  integer, allocatable :: i(:)
  allocate(i(0))
  print *, size(i)
end

This has a valid zero sized array, whereas this doesn't

program foo
  integer, allocatable :: i(:)
  print *, size(i)
end

> But best behavior is g95's that detects the bug, and displays the
> correct line number

Agreed.  Detecting bugs is better.  But, the best behavior 
would be for the programmer not to write invalid code. :-)