GNU Info

(g77-295.info)Sensible Non-standard Constructs

---

Next: READONLY Keyword Prev: POINTER Statements Up: Missing Features

---

Enter node , (file) or (file)node

Sensible Non-standard Constructs
--------------------------------

   `g77' rejects things other compilers accept, like `INTRINSIC
SQRT,SQRT'.  As time permits in the future, some of these things that
are easy for humans to read and write and unlikely to be intended to
mean something else will be accepted by `g77' (though `-fpedantic'
should trigger warnings about such non-standard constructs).

   Until `g77' no longer gratuitously rejects sensible code, you might
as well fix your code to be more standard-conforming and portable.

   The kind of case that is important to except from the recommendation
to change your code is one where following good coding rules would
force you to write non-standard code that nevertheless has a clear
meaning.

   For example, when writing an `INCLUDE' file that defines a common
block, it might be appropriate to include a `SAVE' statement for the
common block (such as `SAVE /CBLOCK/'), so that variables defined in
the common block retain their values even when all procedures declaring
the common block become inactive (return to their callers).

   However, putting `SAVE' statements in an `INCLUDE' file would
prevent otherwise standard-conforming code from also specifying the
`SAVE' statement, by itself, to indicate that all local variables and
arrays are to have the `SAVE' attribute.

   For this reason, `g77' already has been changed to allow this
combination, because although the general problem of gratuitously
rejecting unambiguous and "safe" constructs still exists in `g77', this
particular construct was deemed useful enough that it was worth fixing
`g77' for just this case.

   So, while there is no need to change your code to avoid using this
particular construct, there might be other, equally appropriate but
non-standard constructs, that you shouldn't have to stop using just
because `g77' (or any other compiler) gratuitously rejects it.

   Until the general problem is solved, if you have any such construct
you believe is worthwhile using (e.g. not just an arbitrary, redundant
specification of an attribute), please submit a bug report with an
explanation, so we can consider fixing `g77' just for cases like yours.