https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > That seems to be the case. For the moment, the lesson I learnt is never > to return arrays with a lower bound different from 1. The following variant program return_allocatable implicit none real, allocatable :: a(:) real, parameter :: b(-2:4)=[1,2,3,4,5,6,7] a=b print*,lbound(a),':',ubound(a) deallocate(a) a=foo(3) print*,lbound(a),':',ubound(a) contains function foo(n) result(res) integer :: n real, allocatable :: res(:) allocate(res(-3:n)) res=n print *, lbound(res), ubound(res) end function end program gives (with the default -frealloc-lhs) -2 : 4 -3 3 1 : 7 Is this correct? > This kind of sucks. Why having lower bounds different than 0 sometimes only? > Either have them, or don't! In Fortran the default lower bounds are always 1 and never 0.