F2003 and compilers...
From: Bart Vandewoestyne (MyFirstName.MyLastName_at_telenet.be)
Date: 03/17/05
- Next message: Bart Vandewoestyne: "Re: Eclipse / Photran for F"
- Previous message: Bart Vandewoestyne: "Re: DO or FORALL control ... is not declared locally ?"
- Next in thread: Richard E Maine: "Re: F2003 and compilers..."
- Reply: Richard E Maine: "Re: F2003 and compilers..."
- Reply: beliavsky_at_aol.com: "Re: F2003 and compilers..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:08:22 +0000 (UTC)
While I was checking out the g95 page today, I noticed the following
things:
http://g95.org/docs.html tells me g95 has a -std=F2003 option. What
does this mean? I can check if a sourcefile is written according to the
F2003 standard, but I cannot get any binary output?
On the g95 site, i notice some entries like:
"Andrew Beddall pointed out that the F2003 GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE()
subroutine was not implemented. Added it."
"Bill McLean pointed out an error with the f2003 get_command_argument()
intrinsic. The output argument weren't marked as INTENT(OUT)"
Does this mean g95 already has some F2003 features and a programmer can
already write and compile F2003 code in a certain way? Or is it just
syntax checking, but no binary output yet?
Regards,
Bart
-- "Share what you know. Learn what you don't."
- Next message: Bart Vandewoestyne: "Re: Eclipse / Photran for F"
- Previous message: Bart Vandewoestyne: "Re: DO or FORALL control ... is not declared locally ?"
- Next in thread: Richard E Maine: "Re: F2003 and compilers..."
- Reply: Richard E Maine: "Re: F2003 and compilers..."
- Reply: beliavsky_at_aol.com: "Re: F2003 and compilers..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]