On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:35:24AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 9/26/19 10:45 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>
> PS: I was also not that happy about the BOZ changes by Steve, which
> broke code here – but, fortunately, adding int( ,kind=) around it was
> sufficient and that code was supposed to be F2003 standard conforming.
> I could ping the authors and is now fixed. Still, I wonder how much code
> broke due to that change; code is not that simple to fix. – But, in
> general, I am very much in favour in having valid Fortran 2018 code (can
> be fixed form, old and use old features, that's fine).
>
My BOZ patch brought gfortran closer to an actual comforming
Fortran compiler while providing an option that would allow
quite a few documented and undocumented extensions. If the
patch broke some of your code, and -fallow-invalid-boz did not
allow the code to compile, and you were forced to use INT(, kind=)
to get it to compile, then, no, the code was not conforming.
And since you mention F2003, for the record
C410 (R411) A boz-literal-constant shall appear only as a
data-stmt-constant in a DATA statement, as the actual
argument associated with the dummy argument A of the
numeric intrinsic functions DBLE, REAL or INT, or as
the actual argument associated with the X or Y dummy
argument of the intrinsic function CMPLX.
--
Steve
