Re: flush geterg and iargc question

[Richard E Maine <Richard dot Maine at nasa dot gov>]

On Nov 7, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Benjamin Réveillé wrote:

> I knew these where extensions but I didn't think I'd get a warning
> when using the -std that supports them.

I'm slightly puzzled, either by your expectations, or perhaps just the 
way they are expressed; I'm not entirely sure which.

There is *NO* version of the standard that supports iargc or the flush 
subroutine. From the way you wrote the above, I get the impression that 
you think thay they are supported in some version of the standard. 
Therefore when you ask for standard-conformance checking, you'll get 
messages about them. That's the whole point of asking for 
standard-conformance checking. If you don't want messages for such 
things, then don't ask for that. If you want some of the other messages 
you get, but you don't want these in particular, then that would be 
asking for the ability to customize your own list of things checked 
for. While that would be a nice feature, it isn't one that gfortran has 
(nor do most compilers, though sometimes there are switches for 
particularly common cases).

The functionality of iargc and flush are in f2003, but not "spelled" 
those ways. As you apparently know, the standard form of iargc in f2003 
is system_argument_count. While I understand your concern that the 
f2003 form isn't yet supported by all  compilers, that concern doesn't 
change the fact that iargc is nonstandard, so you'll get complaints 
about it if you ask for standard-conformance checking (any version). 
You might, by the way, want to check into Lawson Wakefield's fkcli at 
<www.winteracter.com/f2kcli>. The functionality of flush is in f2003, 
but it is a statement instead of a subroutine.

--
Richard Maine                |  Good judgment comes from experience;
Richard.Maine@nasa.gov       |  experience comes from bad judgment.
                            |        -- Mark Twain