forums.silverfrost.com

[DanRRight]

How to set that specific type of error and only it -- when the line is truncated -- is considered as compilation error? That's the type of errors from the hell. That will also probably require that FTN95 do a bit better job to define what is truncated line and what is not (we discussed that a while ago), but this is really needed

[PaulLaidler]

Your question is rather vague. Can you give an example?

As you know the line length is restricted by the Fortran Standard and depends on whether you are using fixed or free format. So errors can occur if the permitted line length is exceeded.

I would be nice if you could reply in a manner that does not appear to be abusive.

[DanRRight]

Sorry, if my post seems this way, i'm not a pro in English, i do not feel it because permanently translate into another one and back which goes too slow. I usually edit my post 10-20 times before stop exhausted. This time i was looking for the error in the someones code the whole night and seems what you see as abusive is just first 5th or 8th edition. I do not want anyone to read my first ones even though they would be considered as top of politeness in my motherland language LOL (i will reserve that to someone who took the decision not to make FTN95 64bit capable ). Anyway there was nothing personal

Here is an example in fixed format (please make sure tab is used a as first symbol)

[LitusSaxonicum]

Dan,

You can use /WIDE_SOURCE to remove the column 72 limit in what would otherwise be fixd format. Even if you don't want to look at every warning, you could test compile with /WIDE_SOURCE and without it and compare the final totals of warnings.

Perhaps with your first truncation you are asking for a warning NOT to be issued if the truncation occurs in an in-line comment. I can see the point of that, as it makes no difference to the code generated.

Eddie

[DanRRight]

Eddie,
/WIDE_SOURCE is invitation to disaster of another sort. I use 132 char source too and permanently cross the limit. Still, the text width must have a limit. And my strong feeling is that compiler must consider this specific warning as an error. IT IS 100% error. Or you suggest not to have any limits at all? That could be error prone suggestion from the other end because in this case you typically do not see the whole text. That kind of text styles are common with HTML/Java to cause vomit respond and keep away the copycats LOL. No, with all my extremism, after trying that i'd never want the /WIDE_SOURCE for myself

[PaulLaidler]

Just to clarify, exceeding the line limit is treated as an error unless /WIDE_SOURCE is use and the warning tells the user they should look again at the line.

[DanRRight]

Paul,
1) Compiling above program gives me no error without /wide_source, only warnings

2) Similarly compiling without /wide_source this slightly modified program (again, will stress that because taking the code from this forum as is adds me one more space - are your results different?) where tab is 8 spaces and comments are placed into 73 position gives me 4(!) warnings about truncated lines. Please check

[PaulLaidler]

You can upgrade this warning to an error by creating a local ftn95.cfg file that contains the line

[davidb]

A Fortran 77 compiler (and a Fortran 90, 95 compiler) is allowed to ignore anything after column 72 and it doesn't need to give even a warning or an error. These lines were traditionally used for "sequence" numbers so that Fortran codes on card decks could be put in the correct order after they have been dropped on the lab floor.

It is perfectly reasonable for FTN95 to issue just a warning for these lines. But you can change the warning to an error if you want.

Alternatively, it is a relatively easy task to find such lines before you compile the code. You can write a Fortran program to find and print them out. Or you can find them in a decent editor such as vi.
_________________
Programmer in: Fortran 77/95/2003/2008, C, C++ (& OpenMP), java, Python, Perl

[DanRRight]

Paul,
Glad that there exist such possibility. Tried /message_set_to_Error 61
but it does not go by some reason. Error report is

*** /MESSAGE_SET_TO_ERROR is not a valid option in a /OPTIONS file, FTN95.CFG,
C:\Program Files (x86)\Silverfrost\FTN95\FTN95.CFG or the environment
variable FTN95CFG - use FTN95 /? for valid options

Second option also does show hot to turn this warning into error. Can you please look again?

Davidb,
I'd better use punchcards then VI editor! Which means i am not a true programmer LOL
Yes, i have written such program years ago and use it sometimes ones a year. It is part of the code so the code checks itself (and is doing some other useful stuff). This helped to find few violations. But it is not convenient for everyday use, the compiler must do that job.

[PaulLaidler]

"/MESSAGE_SET_TO_ERROR 61" is not a command line option.

It must go into a ftn95.cfg file or (I guess) another /OPTIONS file.

[jalih]

[DanRRight]

Paul,
I dunno, something is wrong. I tried all variants and then some, but none goes. Can anybody try too and then compile the above snippets and get an error instead of warning?

Jali
I like NoteTab,use it from its start 15+ years ago, it got a lot of all kinds of awards as best editor. But editor or compiler people use are religious questions, so i do not push it. (Its icon by the way was made on Salford Icon Editor

[JohnCampbell]

Paul,

I agree with Dan. I installed the option for 61 to be an error, using FTN95 /config in a local ftn95.cfg file. This resulted in the following .cfg file:

[PaulLaidler]

Sorry about that. I will check it out.