| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8283
Location: Salford, UK
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
My mistake! I forgot to use /undef in the latest test.
I will note this as still open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
davidb
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 560
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Nothing is free after all.
I had a look at the assembly code for both codes with /check on and it was clear there is a difference with 7.1.
_________________
Programmer in: Fortran 77/95/2003/2008, C, C++ (& OpenMP), java, Python, Perl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8283
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This has now been fixed for the next release.
When using /CHECK,
call xxx(a+0)
and
call xxx((a))
both fail at run time when the INTENT is unknown and the dummy argument is assigned a value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mecej4
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1917
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We appreciate the prompt and efficient response from Silverfrost to the bug report and look forward to the next release of the compiler.
[P.S., 15 June 2015: The bug is not present in FTN95-7.20]
Last edited by mecej4 on Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davidb
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 560
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is good news. Thanks very much Paul 
_________________
Programmer in: Fortran 77/95/2003/2008, C, C++ (& OpenMP), java, Python, Perl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
