This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: pr22146 - elemental subroutines
- From: Richard E Maine <Richard dot Maine at nasa dot gov>
- To: Tobias dot Schlueter at Physik dot Uni-Muenchen dot DE
- Cc: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>, "'fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Erik Edelmann <erik dot edelmann at iki dot fi>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 07:43:09 -0800
- Subject: Re: pr22146 - elemental subroutines
- References: <43B96299.1010406@wanadoo.fr> <1136223712.43b965e006399@www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de>
On Jan 2, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Tobias.Schlueter@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE
wrote:
Quoting Paul Thomas <paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr>:
(i) I need to find out what this alternate specifier stuff is all
about
in the line trans-stmt.c:231. Does it apply to elemental subroutines?
Probably not, as ELEMENTAL subroutines may not have alternate returns.
I don't
have time to check, but this is how I recall both the standard, and
what
has_alternate_specifier is about.
I don't off-hand recall the restriction on this in the standard, but I
can state with confidence that there "has" to be one because an
alternate return just wouldn't make sense elementally; you can't return
to multiple places. So I don't even feel that I have to look it up. If
the restriction doesn't happen to be there, that would be a bug in the
standard (one that would be worth getting fixed in an interp).
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain