------- Comment #11 from Lulin dot Song at gmail dot com 2010-09-01 15:29 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > (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 > heard.) > AbfSalfort is typo. We use Salfort ftn95 on Windows. > 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 :-) >
Thanks a lot for your explaining. I thought it was bug since it behaves different when the return type is different. I will submit future report to mail list first to see anyone can answer there to avoid flooding the bugzilla. -- Lulin dot Song at gmail dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45466