Is this (another) bug?

[Salvatore Filippone]

Il mer, 2005-02-02 alle 14:08, François-Xavier Coudert ha scritto:
> > subroutine mysub(n,v)
> >   integer :: n
> >   real    :: v(*)
> 
> If you specify v(n) here, it does work. Bounds checking seems to need the 
> bounds explicitly provided in this subroutine.
> 
> FX
Yes, I understand that in order to get a precise check I have to specify
v(n). 
But if I have a bunch of codes, some of which are old-style, and I
enable bounds checking, I would very much prefer the compiler not to
give me an error message in a situation where it cannot possibly know if
a bounds violation actually happened. Of course this is subject to some
interpretation, and maybe you could argue for a command-line switch to
choose among behaviours, but as it is I can't make use of it.

Anybody knows why it doesn't give  the backtrace/linenumber?  
Not to offend anybody, but "that other" gcc based compiler does....
-- 
Salvatore Filippone <sfilippone@uniroma2.it>