Hi Paul,
I must say that I was thinking rather more of the INTENT(IN) case to make
sure that it is accepted.
Ah, I misunderstood that. You're right - also check legal code :-)
I've committed the attached test case as obvious (after verifying that
it passes. It checks against functions and su
I must say that I was thinking rather more of the INTENT(IN) case to make
sure that it is accepted.
Paul
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 17:41, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > This is OK by me.
>
> Committed (or should I say "pushed"?), thanks!
>
> > Is it worth testing the INTENT variants?
>
> I
Hi Paul,
This is OK by me.
Committed (or should I say "pushed"?), thanks!
Is it worth testing the INTENT variants?
I added a test for INTENT(INOUT), here's the version of the
test case that was committed.
Best regards
Thomas
program main
implicit none
integer :: i1, i2, i3, i
Hi Thomas,
This is OK by me.
Is it worth testing the INTENT variants?
Cheers
Paul
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 20:03, Thomas Koenig via Fortran
wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> the attached patch issues an error for something that I am sure most
> people did at least once (I know I did), something like
>
Hello world,
the attached patch issues an error for something that I am sure most
people did at least once (I know I did), something like
do i=1,10
call foo
end do
...
contains
subroutine foo
do i=1,5
...
end do
which is, of course, illegal, but the programmer's fault. We
