This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug fortran/41678] Format label as second item in io control list is rejected



------- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-10-12 13:31 -------
Comment #5 was intended for pr38439.

> ahh, I was looking at the F2003 Standard which is not as clear.  However, is
> this relaxation in F2003 done on purpose?  I found the rejected code in the IBM
> compiler manual as an example.

R913 io-control-spec is [ UNIT = ] io-unit
                                        or [ FMT = ] format
                                        ...
... the first item shall be io-unit.

My reading is that io-unit is a number without "unit=" before it, but I am not
a lawyer! Note that my xlf manual (version3, release 2, october 1994,
SC09-1611-01) quotes the f95 wording.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41678


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]