On 03/14/2013 10:03 AM, Tim Prince wrote:
On 3/14/2013 9:39 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:When I use -std=f95 this fortran77 code will not compile. Many different complaints but the most serious are normal variable declarations: INTEGER*8 TOTTIME(0:MAXTASK) ! Task total exec time ( 1 Error: Nonstandard type declaration INTEGER*8 at (1) ????Are you hoping to amend the F77 standard retroactively to get this extension accepted as standard in a round-about way? 24-, 36-, and 60-bit machines were still in use when F77 was under development, so there was no meaningful way to incorporate an extension which was designed to prevent code from being portable to any but 16- and 32-bit (or some 64-bit) platforms. It's true that the f77 standard didn't require an option to reject this syntax, but many f77 compilers did reject it. The fact that some accepted it doesn't make it fortran77. If you intend to keep your application restricted to the majority of current platforms where integer*8 and integer(8) are synonymous, the latter will probably pass standards checking, even though replacing the 8 by a parameter constant would be preferable.
No I'm not hoping to amend any standard. I have been using different vendors flavours of fortran 77 since the mid 70s. This is how it's done on every one I ever used. I assumed it was standard and can hardly believe it isn't. This code BTW was actually written on a fortran77 I never had used until I got this project and it was standard for them also? I've never even seen an "integer(8) param" before.
The point is, Tobias said that anything that builds using -std=legacy should also build using -std=f95. And that I should be able to use the f95 method of optional variables. When using -std=legacy this builds just fine so I assume even gfortran understands this as standard. If so, and gfortran is backwards compatible as I was told, then integer*8 should be OK using -std=f95 also. Why is it not?
Did I read something wrong in Tobias response to my OP? Thanks Mark
