------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 14:32 ------- (In reply to comment #9) > when the return value is character string, is it more intuitive to be > > requestdouble ( real(kind=8) & rlat, real(kind=8) & > rlng,character(kind=1)[1:16] & __result, integer(kind=4) .__result) > > instead of > > requestdouble (character(kind=1)[1:16] & __result, integer(kind=4) .__result > > , real(kind=8) & rlat, real(kind=8) & rlng) ?
I find both equally intuitive. I think the current order matches g77 and some other compilers; for instance NAG uses: void requestdouble_(requestdouble_Result,requestdouble_ResultLen,rlat_,rlng_) Thus as the other order is not clearly superior, sticking to the current order avoids a lot of trouble both for the compiler development and for user code. > with three different compilers (Intel ifort, AbfSalford ftn95 and gfortran). Ifort supports Fortran 2003's C binding since quite some time; I think Salfort doesn't nor does Absoft, but I might be wrong. (Of AbfSalfort I have never heard.) For general Fortran discussion, I suggest the newsgroup comp.lang.fortran (via your news server or via http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/) or the gfortran mailing list. A bug report is not the proper method of communication :-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45466
