(j3.2006) request for interpretation

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Wed Apr 2 16:12:37 EDT 2008

On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 14:33 -0500, Bill Long wrote:
> Bill Long wrote:
> >  
> > The version of PGI that I have (7.1.6) gives a compile time error.  So 
> > do Pathscale and Cray.
> >
> > Of course, a compiler can do anything with a non-conforming program 
> > like this, since there is no hard constraint involved here.  It's 
> > possible that among the compilers that do allow this, it is the case 
> > of just not doing the check (since it is not required), rather than a 
> > deliberate decision to pick one specific over the other.
> >
> I would just note that in the f08 draft (pp 281-282 of 08-007r2), the 
> rules that require distinguishable specifics have been converted into 
> Constraints.  Thus, while some lax compliers can argue conformance now, 
> the new standard will require that they diagnose the error in the 
> example code you posted.

Those rules were in Clause 16 in Fortran 2003.  Violations of the
"rules" in Clause 16 are required to be diagnosed in the same way as
constraints are required to be diagnosed.  That's why they were
converted to constraints when they were move.

> Cheers,
> Bill

More information about the J3 mailing list