New problems with gcc-2.8.0 based code - NOW FIXED!

[Toon Moene]

Joe, you must be kiddin'

>  Imagine a C-like language where functions are pure
>  (side-effect-free) by default, and one had to say "impure"
>  to turn this off.  Clearly it would be reasonable to make
>  void functions "impure" by default, and it would seem
>  strange to be swayed by the argument that a pure void
>  function cannot then be written.  A pure void function
>  is necessarily a no-op, same as a nonvolatile asm
>  instruction with no outputs.

You are describing a Fortran-95 PURE FUNCTION :-)
[ IMPURE functions, obviously, are SUBROUTINEs ... ]

Cheers,
Toon.