Re: "actual argument keyword name"

On Dec 17, 12:45 pm, jwm <jwmwal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 15, 7:24 pm, nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Maine) wrote:

Really. That seems surprising. It isn't as though there is anything that
even the most egregious misreading could interpret as such a condition
in the standard. I find it hard to imagine that any vendor would insert
such a requirement. I would love to see an example. I suspect that you
probably misinterpreted the cause. Of course, my suspicion could be
wrong.

You'd be surprised at the kind of bugs I've found in IVF, but that's
off-topic. I don't have the v9.0 installed on my computer anymore,
and also, I don't remember the exact sub-subversion (i.e., 9.0.xxx),
but it happened with a generic function I wrote. A sample follows:
[snip]

John, I've looked back at the issues you have submitted to us over the
years and can't see one that resembles this example you provide. I
tried a test program based on the case you say gave you trouble, and
it compiled fine. I also tried examples with CVF and saw no problems
there either. Lastly I searched our issue database to see if I could
find reports from anyone regarding such a problem, and came up empty.

I don't deny that IVF, like every other compiler on the planet, has
and has had bugs. Of course, we'd prefer that it didn't and want to
fix those that we learn about, so it's frustrating to read complaints
of bugs that we can't see evidence for. Perhaps you did encounter a
problem at some point, but it doesn't seem to be exactly the one you
talk about here.

I'm unaware that our compiler, going back as far as DEC Fortran 90,
ever complained about using keywords for non-optional arguments. Of
course, that is going back some 15 years and I can't possibly remember
every bug in that time. If anyone has an example or evidence of this,
I'd love to see it - just send me an email.


Steve Lionel
Developer Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH

User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://softwareforums.intel.com/
Intel Fortran Support
http://support.intel.com/support/performancetools/fortran
My Fortran blog
http://www.intel.com/software/drfortran
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Maples "fd" crash code, and FORTRAN in Maple
    ... Maybe a bit of Fortran lately. ... suggest that Maple contained FORTRAN. ... the Visual C compiler is eliminable. ... 2-3 bugs can be hit per hour. ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
  • Re: Praise for Gfortran (finally)
    ... Dear Tobias and everyone else involved with Gfortran, ... |the number of bugs bugs. ... I would also claim that Fortran is complex | ... I am not promoting any compiler as lacking bugs, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Not consistent unformatted write
    ... Which version of Intel Fortran are you using? ... User communities for Intel Software Development Products ... Steve, I was using ifort 11.0 installed on the server in my office, ... but then I thought the compiler could have played a role in this, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Fortran Compiler
    ... If you had approached it the way you did with gfortran, which is undoubtedly from the command line, you would probably do just as well with Intel Fortran. ... To get to the command line interface, select Start> All Programs> Intel Software Development Tools> Intel Visual Fortran Compiler Professional 11.1.xxx> Fortran Build Environment For Applications Running On IA-32. ... The responsibility of solving those startup problems with the Intel ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Praise for Gfortran (finally)
    ... |complained that Fortran compilers are buggy: With C errors are almost | ... but for Fortran one can never rule out compiler | ... |bugs; the program thus now contains a couple of workarounds.I have to | ... |You have to realize that not a single one of the gfortran developers | ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)