------- Comment #14 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2007-03-20 21:04 ------- Subject: Re: short-circuit in -fbounds-check
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >> But I'll stop this discussion here, and will stay with g95 when I want to >> bound-check my program. > > Why short circuiting is legal and so is not short circuiting. Yes Gfortran's > behavior is semi inconstaint but that does not make gfortran's behavior > incorrect. In fact I want to say Gfortran's behavior with -fbounds-check with > not short circuiting is actually a good thing because you catch more > invalid/undefined fortran code that way. How about we stop this discussion? I don't think anyone was volunteering to implement a solution anyway. To sum up the alternatives: you repeated the argument for one side above. Other people want their program to do the same thing whether bounds checking is enabled or not -- except in the case where the non bounds-checking program would have made an out-of-bounds access. Neither party is "right", I consider this latter behavior preferable. Thank you, and goodbye. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31269
