On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 21:35:42 +0100 Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Bernhard, > > Am 12.11.21 um 21:18 schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Fortran: > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 18:39:48 +0100 > > Harald Anlauf via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > Sounds plausible. > > this is what I thought, too. And nvfortran and flang accept the > testcase, as well as crayftn (cce/12.0.2). Don't know about the former 2, but cray is really the MIPS compiler (open64 / pathscale etc), no? I always liked the SGI compiler (it was marvellous in mem addressing really, at least in my cases in former times) but i'm not familiar with the other two so cannot deduct anything from their opinion TBH. > > Intel accepts the first case (a), but rejects the second (b). > I asked in the Intel forum. Steve Lionel doubts that the code is > valid. On what grounds does Steve L. think it's invalid? Missing initializer to rectify the len=8? If so, what's the reasoning to doubt that? > > There might be some confusion on my side, but having Cray on my > side feels good. (Although the PR was entered into bugzilla by > a Cray employee). Vendors. Well. It would certainly be the first time a vendor was not entirely correct. IME vendors tended to favour compatibility over correctness more often than not. This certainly may have, erm, has changed. > > are caught elsewhere if one assumes that len should be a positive int > 0 > > (didn't look) > > Also did not look if > > character(kind=c_char, len=SELECTED_REAL_KIND(10)) :: j ! is that constant? > > Should it be? > > These things should already be handled in general and > elsewhere, as they are not about interoperability. Excellent. I'd ACK your patch then but i cannot approve it. Thanks for the patch and cheers,
