I understood -pedantic such that it gives warnings if a construct does not match the Fortran standard. Currently, it seems to be partially used such but also used to warn for non-Fortran-95 (!) constructs.
I think one should go through the pedantic sections in the source and check whether they still make sense (e.g. give an error for valid F2003, cf. e.g. PR35882); maybe we should also some more checks? (At least I often forget to think of the -pedantic option.) Additionally, one should change (a) "to Fortran 95" into "to the Fortran standard" and (b) "Valid Fortran 95 programs" into "Programs which are valid according to the Fortran standard" -- or something like that. In the manual wie have: -pedantic Issue warnings for uses of extensions to Fortran 95. [...] Valid Fortran 95 programs should compile properly with or without this option. However, without this option, certain GNU extensions and traditional Fortran features are supported as well. With this option, many of them are rejected. This should be used in conjunction with -std=f95, -std=f2003, or -std=f2008. -- Summary: -pedantic: Check for -std=f95/f2003/f2008 Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: documentation Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35930