http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-17 17:58:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I asked at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/mkbYH6F9G2M
> and two former J3 committee members concur that the code of comment 0 is
> invalid:
>
> Dick Hendrickson wrote: 'I think there was an interpretation request a few
> years ago about something like this. I think the answer was "bad program".'
>
> Richard Maine wrote: [...] 'the answer from the standard, which is basically
> that the program is not conforming on procesors where the result for i
> is not defined.'
>
>
> Thus, I close the bug as INVALID.
I don't care enough to re-open the PR, but you'll
see that at least one person disagrees with both
former J3 members.
The Standard does not define 'incremented' and
'incrementation', and in particular, these words
are not defined in terms of the numeric intrinsic
operations and so you cannot appeal to Section 7.
