------- 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

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 :-)



Reply via email to