This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g77 bug with const argument
- To: toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl (Toon Moene)
- Subject: Re: g77 bug with const argument
- From: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: craig at jcb-sc dot com, khan at xraylith dot wisc dot EDU, gcc-bugs at egcs dot cygnus dot com
Thanks Toon, you certainly did a better job of explaining this.
I should probably just let this thread die, but I have one question:
Does g77 treat the invocation of a subroutine (and function) as if
it is PURE (i.e., that it can't have side-effects)?
x = 1.
write(*,*) x. write(*,*) 1.
call b(x) call b(1.)
4 write(*,*) x. write(*,*) 1.
In line 4 on the left, I would not expect x to be 1. because the call
to b() could have changed x. In line 4 on the right, 1. is, well, 1.,i
and I would expect that it would not change even though "call b(1.)"
passes its argument by reference.
Once upon a time, Toon Moene said:
> Steven G. Kargl wrote:
>
> > Once upon a time, craig@jcb-sc.com said:
>
> > > Please just read the g77 docs thoroughly, especially the info on
> > > non-bugs. You seem to be confusing *syntactic* correctness with
> > > *correctness* itself. Also please review all sorts of related
> > > discussions, as well as the FAQ, on comp.lang.fortran (USENET).
>
[Toon's explanation deleted]
>
> > The node non-bugs in g77.info does have anything to say about
^^^^^^^^^
Whoops does not have
> > this problem.
> >
> > I read comp.lang.fortran daily.
The Fortran FAQ does not discuss this problem.
>
> The issue about Standard conformance for parts of a program vs. a
> complete program was discussed about three weeks ago on
> comp.lang.fortran. Dick Hendrickson claimed that one could only speak
> about the conformance of "complete programs", not subprograms. However,
> someone else pointed out that the Standard does not say this [Quoting
> the first paragraph of Chapter 1.5 Conformance]:
Do you have a pointer to this thread? Richard Maine has probably
offered his opinion and I am curious to the outcome.
>
> PS: This reminds me that I should send a patch to include a URL to
> the relevant Standard for inclusion in our Readings section ...
>
There already is a URL under the G77 languange node.
I've downloaded the html version of the F77 standard,
so that I can understand the issues better.
--
Steve