In the case of zero sized automatic arrays, LBOUND(array) and LBOUND(array,
DIM) can give different results:
program fred
call jackal (3, 2)
contains
subroutine jackal (b, c)
integer :: b, c
integer :: soda(b:c, 1:2)
print *, "SIZE = ", size(soda)
print *, "LBOUND (soda, DIM) = ", ubound (soda, 1), ubound(soda, 2)
print *, "LBOUND (soda) = ", ubound (soda)
end subroutine jackal
end
gives:
SIZE = 0
LBOUND (soda, DIM) = 2 2
LBOUND (soda) = 2 0
>From my reading of the standard, it is the second LBOUND which is correct. ie.
the array soda is zero size in that dimension.
I have stared at the code until I am blue in the face but cannot see why there
is this difference in results. I will attach a patch for trans-instrinsic.c
that fixes the conditions in gfc_conv_intrinsic_bound and the code that it
produces for print *, LBOUND(soda,2) and print *, LBOUND(soda).
Paul
--
Summary: LBOUND (array) and LBOUND (array, DIM) give different
results.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29489
