Re: eqv vs ==
- From: "Jugoslav Dujic" <jdujic@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:00:31 +0100
dpb wrote:
| Arjen Markus wrote:
|| On 22 nov, 15:48, Arjen Markus <arjen.mar...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
||| On 22 nov, 15:28, "Jugoslav Dujic" <jdu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|| I checked Intel Fortran version 9.0 under Linux with this
|| program:
||
|| program test_ifs
||
|| integer, dimension(10) :: int_array
||
|| int_array = 1
||
|| if ( abs(int_array(1).gt.0) ) then
|| write(*,*) 'abs - true!'
|| endif
||
|| if ( int_array(2) ) then
|| write(*,*) 'int - true!'
|| endif
||
|| end program
||
|| Intel Fortran happily compiles it and the result is:
||
|| abs - true!
|| int - true!
||
|| g95 refuses to compile it, as does gfortran.
||
|| With the option -warn stderrors ifort also complains.
|
|
| W/ the option /warn:[f95|f90] so does CVF...
Yes, but VF has also been bitched at concerning the granularity of their
warning messages: you can get either none or all, and there's no extension
akin to #pragma warning(disable:).
In my case, the code heavily interfaces with C, and is loaded with conditional
compilation directives, cray pointers, and various !DEC$ATTRIBUTES. If I switch
/warn:f95 on, I'd get a ~1000 warnings about those (thanks, I know), likely
hiding the ones I *do* care about.
--
Jugoslav
___________
www.xeffort.com
Please reply to the newsgroup.
You can find my real e-mail on my home page above.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: eqv vs ==
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: eqv vs ==
- From: dpb
- Re: eqv vs ==
- References:
- eqv vs ==
- From: Arno
- Re: eqv vs ==
- From: Steve Lionel
- Re: eqv vs ==
- From: Jugoslav Dujic
- Re: eqv vs ==
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: eqv vs ==
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: eqv vs ==
- From: dpb
- eqv vs ==
- Prev by Date: Re: eqv vs ==
- Next by Date: Read binaries from matlab
- Previous by thread: Re: eqv vs ==
- Next by thread: Re: eqv vs ==
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|