From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5678 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 15:34:03 -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 5645 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 15:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-out.comcast.net) (24.153.64.116) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 15:34:02 -0000 Received: from comcast.net (12-238-57-93.client.attbi.com [12.238.57.93]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built Feb 13 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HFC00JNYJ8HDG@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:36:00 -0000 From: Bud Davis Subject: Re: g77 compiles illegal code in testsuite? To: "Steven G. Kargl" Cc: gcc Message-id: <3ECE3F59.60907@comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003 References: <200305231507.h4NF7BW7001016@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02098.txt.bz2 Steven G. Kargl wrote: >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. > > > quite right about AMAX0. it would not be correct. i read the table wrong :) --bud davis