flush geterg and iargc question

[Benjamin Réveillé]

Hello Richard

It's probably by the way I express them.  And my possible
mis-interpretation of gfortran's warning messages.

I activate -std=gnu instead of -std=f95 to have acces to flush getarg
and iargc [as used by the other compilers] since they are not provided
at all with -std=f95 because I know they are not in the f95
standard...


I don't "understand why"/"find odd that" gfortrans warning messages
say that they aren't in the "standard" i'm using i.e. "gnu" when they
are provided by -std=gnu.
>"Warning: Intrinsic 'getarg' at (1) is not included in the selected standard"
Maybe I'm confusing "standard" and -std option... I interpret
"standard" as what I have asked for with the -std option. That may be
wrong. If so thanks for enlightening me.

I hope this clears up what I mean.

2005/11/7, Richard E Maine <Richard.Maine@nasa.gov>:
>
> On Nov 7, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Benjamin Réveillé wrote:
>
> > I knew these where extensions but I didn't think I'd get a warning
> > when using the -std that supports them.
>
> I'm slightly puzzled, either by your expectations, or perhaps just the
> way they are expressed; I'm not entirely sure which.
>
> There is *NO* version of the standard that supports iargc or the flush
> subroutine. From the way you wrote the above, I get the impression that
> you think thay they are supported in some version of the standard.
> Therefore when you ask for standard-conformance checking, you'll get
> messages about them. That's the whole point of asking for
> standard-conformance checking. If you don't want messages for such
> things, then don't ask for that. If you want some of the other messages
> you get, but you don't want these in particular, then that would be
> asking for the ability to customize your own list of things checked
> for. While that would be a nice feature, it isn't one that gfortran has
> (nor do most compilers, though sometimes there are switches for
> particularly common cases).
>
> The functionality of iargc and flush are in f2003, but not "spelled"
> those ways. As you apparently know, the standard form of iargc in f2003
> is system_argument_count. While I understand your concern that the
> f2003 form isn't yet supported by all  compilers, that concern doesn't
> change the fact that iargc is nonstandard, so you'll get complaints
> about it if you ask for standard-conformance checking (any version).
> You might, by the way, want to check into Lawson Wakefield's fkcli at
> <www.winteracter.com/f2kcli>. The functionality of flush is in f2003,
> but it is a statement instead of a subroutine.
>
> --
> Richard Maine                |  Good judgment comes from experience;
> Richard.Maine@nasa.gov       |  experience comes from bad judgment.
>                              |        -- Mark Twain
>
>