------- 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:
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
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 :-)