> F90 is over 26 years old. There has been 3 major revisions that
> have superceded F90 (F95, F03, and F08). All of those revisions
> include the text that you pointed out to me. Why is it surprising
> that a compiler conforms to the standard?
>
> "Simplify, simplify, simplify." Henry David
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:55:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:39:51PM +0200, FX wrote:
>
> > - why remove the -Wsurprising warning? it seems a good case
> > for -Wsurprising: legal code, but dubious anyway
> >
> > OK after you ponder that second point.
> >
>
> F90
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:39:51PM +0200, FX wrote:
> > 2015-10-16 Steven G. Kargl
> >
> > PR fortran/67987
> > * decl.c (char_len_param_value): Unwrap unlong line. If LEN < 0,
> > then force it to zero pre Fortran Standards.
> > * resolve.c (gfc_resolve_substring_charlen): Un
> 2015-10-16 Steven G. Kargl
>
> PR fortran/67987
> * decl.c (char_len_param_value): Unwrap unlong line. If LEN < 0,
> then force it to zero pre Fortran Standards.
> * resolve.c (gfc_resolve_substring_charlen): Unwrap unlong line.
> If 'start' is larger than 'end
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:17:34PM +0200, FX wrote:
> > The attach patch enforces the Fortran Standard's requirement
> > that character length must be great than or equal to zero.
>
> 4.4.3.2. "If the character length parameter value evaluates to
> a negative value, the length of character entitie
> The attach patch enforces the Fortran Standard's requirement
> that character length must be great than or equal to zero.
We've got to be careful about this. The standard (F2008) has this to say about
character lengths:
4.4.3.1. "The number of characters in the string is called the length of t
The attach patch enforces the Fortran Standard's requirement
that character length must be great than or equal to zero.
The fix submitted here supercedes the fix for PR fortran/31250,
which silently converted a negative string length to zero.
In removing the fix for 31250, a regression occurred, be
