From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2370 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 15:07:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2186 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 15:07:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO troutmask.apl.washington.edu) (128.208.78.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 15:07:13 -0000 Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.12.8/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h4NF7BPR001017; Fri, 23 May 2003 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from kargl@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h4NF7BW7001016; Fri, 23 May 2003 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven G. Kargl" Message-Id: <200305231507.h4NF7BW7001016@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: g77 compiles illegal code in testsuite? In-Reply-To: <3ECE154F.8080009@comcast.net> To: Bud Davis Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:15:00 -0000 CC: gcc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02091.txt.bz2 Bud Davis said: > | I'm running the Fortran 77 code in gcc-testsuite-3.3.tar.bz2 > | through g95 and I've found that 20000601-2.f contains > | illegal code for Fortran 95 and probably Fortran 77. I don't > | have the Fortran 77 standard handy, but I believe the code is > | illegal; yet g77 compiles the code without warning or error. > [Table of intrinsics snipped] > In my interpretation, the code in question is not valid. > MAX is the generic name for MAX0,AMAX1, and DMAX1, This is correct. > not for AMAX0 which is the specfic intrinisic needed here. Actually, I beleive AMAX0 would also be wrong. The arguments of AMAX0 must have the same type. > > Maybe g77 should issue a warning (when invoked with -fpedantic) ? > It's Toon's call, but I think g77 should issue an error and abort. The g77 info contains a -fno-ugly-args option. I would think you should need -fugly-args to compile the code in question. > Of course, IMHO, g95 should be backwards compatable with g77 :) This may not happen, because Fortran 95 has deleted a few features from Fortran 77. -- Steve http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/