For what it is worth.
On 2/10/22 11:49 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Hi Paul,
Am 10.02.22 um 13:25 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Conclusions on ifort:
(i) The agreement between gfortran, with the patch applied, and ifort is
strongest of all the other brands;
(ii) The
Hi Paul,
Am 10.02.22 um 13:25 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Conclusions on ifort:
(i) The agreement between gfortran, with the patch applied, and ifort is
strongest of all the other brands;
(ii) The disagreements are all down to the treatment of the parent
component of arrays of
Hi Harald,
I have run your modified version of finalize_38.f90, and now I see
> that you can get a bloody head just from scratching too much...
>
> crayftn 12.0.2:
>
> 1, 3, 1
>
It appears that Cray interpret a derived type constructor as being a
function call and so "6 If a specification
Remember the days when reading very old cryptic Fortran code? Remember
the fixed line lengths and cryptic variable names!
I fear the Standards committee has achieved history with the Standard
itself it is so difficult to understand sometimes.
Cheers to Paul and Harald for digging on this.
Hi Paul,
Am 08.02.22 um 12:22 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Hi Harald,
Thanks for giving the patch a whirl.
the parent components as an array. I strongly suspect that, from reading
7.5.6.2 paragraphs 2 and 3 closely, that ifort has it right. However,
this
is another issue to
Hi Harald,
Thanks for giving the patch a whirl.
> the parent components as an array. I strongly suspect that, from reading
> > 7.5.6.2 paragraphs 2 and 3 closely, that ifort has it right. However,
> this
> > is another issue to come back to in the future.
>
> Could you specify which version of
Hi Paul,
thanks for attacking this.
I haven't looked at the actual patch, only tried to check the new
testcases with other compilers.
Am 03.02.22 um 18:14 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
I have tried to interpret F2018 7.5.6.2 and 7.5.6.3 as well as possible.
This is not always
