------- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 19:41 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > As I read this, the test case is invalid since it does not have a rewind or > backspace before the write?
Yes - I expect that gfortran should issue an EOR error instead of happily accepting an I/O transfer. > If we want to change this to be an intended extension, I suppose we should > issue a warning or error for -std= ? Well, I think we can do two things: a) Keep the current status and claim it is an extension b) Change it to match NAG f95 and Pathscale and print a run-time EoF error. (Or the equivalent for ERR=/IOSTAT=/IOMSG=.) I do not think that it makes sense to allow it for -std=(gnu/legacy) and not for -std=f(95/2003/2008). As Pathscale prints an error, there is hope that not too many programs rely on having no BACKSPACE/REWIND. Error: Pathscale 3.2.99, NAG f95 v5.1, Open64 4.2 No error: ifort 11.1, gfortran, g95, sunf95 8.3 (sunstudio12), Portland's pgf90 v6.2 and v10.3. (No idea what g77 did.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44477
