Re: [Patch, fortran] Implement inquire(iolength= ) for DTIO

2016-10-16 Thread Dominique d'Humières 
Forget it! It seems that I did not apply the patch!-(

Sorry for the noise.

Dominique

> Le 16 oct. 2016 à 18:42, Dominique d'Humières  a écrit :
> 
> Dear Jerry,
> 
>> The new test fails unless I replace 64 with 16 in 'if (rl.ne.64) call 
>> abort’. This seems consistent with your comment
> 
> I have not been clear enough: I have to replace 64 with 16 even with your 
> patch.
> 
> Dominique
>

Re: [Patch, fortran] Implement inquire(iolength= ) for DTIO

2016-10-16 Thread Dominique d'Humières 
Dear Jerry,

> The new test fails unless I replace 64 with 16 in 'if (rl.ne.64) call abort’. 
> This seems consistent with your comment

I have not been clear enough: I have to replace 64 with 16 even with your patch.

Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] Implement inquire(iolength= ) for DTIO

2016-10-16 Thread Dominique d'Humières 
Dear Jerry,

The new test fails unless I replace 64 with 16 in 'if (rl.ne.64) call abort’. 
This seems consistent with your comment

> The language seems a little obscure. I think the first sentence means
> don't expect inquire to use a UDDTIO procedure and the second sentence
> says when you use a derived type that has UDDTIO procedures
> in the output list, treat them as if they don't and use the default derived 
> type lengths.

The end of the line

  inquire(iolength=rl) rl, kl, chairman, rl, chairman, t;

looks suspicious. Should nit be

  inquire(iolength=rl) rl, kl, chairman, rl, chairman, tl

?

TIA

Dominique