------- Comment #7 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2006-10-22 15:00 ------- Subject: Re: ICE in gfc_match_common for blank common in BLOCK DATA unit
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 11:36:15AM -0000, aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > ------- Comment #5 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-22 11:36 ------- > I think the code in comment #1 is valid. > > f95, 5.5.2.4 Differences between named common and blank common > reads: > A blank common block has the same properties as a named common block except > (iii) [...] objects in blank common shall not be initially defined. > > > 11.8 defines BLOCK DATA as > > block-data-stmt > [specification-part] > end-block-data-stmt > > where [specification-part] lists no further constrained (wrt blank common). > blank-common imposed constraints seem to include > - 5.1 Type decl stmts: [initialization] shall not appear if obj-name is [...] > an object in blank common > You're reading the wrong standard. The final committe draft of Fortran 95 states: 11.4 Block data program units A block data program unit is used to provide initial values for data objects in named common blocks. I'll note that NAG's compiler only issues a warning. laptop:kargl[212] cat l.f90 block data a common c end block data a laptop:kargl[213] f95 -c l.f90 Warning: l.f90, line 2: Blank common appears in BLOCK DATA A If F2003 removes the "named" modifier from common blocks in its discussion on block data, then gfortran should probably implement the F2003 behavior with the caveat that -std=f95 should issue a warning. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29537
