Is this (another) bug?

[Steve Kargl]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Salvatore Filippone wrote:
> Il mer, 2005-02-02 alle 14:08, Fran?ois-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....

Because nobody has implemented, yet.  Here is your chance for
fame and fortune. UTSL.

-- 
Steve