Thomas,
Currently, gfortran is in a half-usable state. It is not yet ready as a replacement for g77 (see PR 19292) and there are quite a lot of things it gets wrong with Fortran 95.
I think that this is way too strong. Of the outstanding PR19292 "bugs": 5900 The penultimate entry says - I would like to propose that this bug be closed. This is about as good as it gets. We should set up some automatic regression testing on LAPACK from hence forth. 13939 Concerns ugly commas - do we want this? If so, it can be done. 14067 The final comment is "The ICE is fixed, but this could still do with a warning." 14994 SECNDS missing - I would say that this should be done. I have used an interface to get round this one. 15234 libgfortran doesn't compile on Tru64 UNIX V4.0F - ??? 5.0 is no problem with a gcc-3.x 16465 parser chokes with ffixed-line-length-7 - is this essential? 16580 hmmmmm, gfortran ICE on test g77.f-torture/execute/intrinsic77.f is this a show stopper? 17737 ICE when variable appears in two data statements - invalid code. 18026 boz initialization of REALs fails. Penultimate comment " I've removed the "reject-valid" keyward because the code is not valid Fortran 95. From section 5.2.10, we have:" 18737 ICE on invalid use of external keyword - this should be fixed. 19425 Duplicate SAVE attribute problem - illegal f95 and questionable f77 20441 -finit-local-zero is missing from gfortran - a useful legacy requirement IMHO. 20811 gfortran include problem (regression from g77) - this should be fixed. A good tyro project. 21565 namelist in block data is illegal - I had better deal with this, hadn't I? 22175 BYTE Type Statement - Last comment "We do have a patch adding that enhancement." 22244 dimension information is lost for multi-dimension array - primarily gdb and optimization problem. 22282 loc intrinsic and %loc construction is not implemented in gfortran - do-able but not a disaster. 22290 Optimize Assigned GOTO to cause error with -O1 or higher - we seem to have a fix for this(?) 22359 fseek intrinsic appears to be unimplemented - should be done (using C fseek?). 23060 %VAL construct not implemented - do we want this? If so, it is do-able. 23912 MOD function requires same kind arguments - very fixable. I would say that this is a 33:33:33 mix of fixed:do-able:ignorable/wrong - let's have a blitz on it. Paul
